Kolkata Court February 1928 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dwijendra Mohan Shaha and ors. Vs. Lalit Mohan Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.510
This appeal must be allowed. The Additional District Judge on appeal has held that the decree was incapable of execution as it was a nullity having been passed without jurisdiction. There he was clearly wrong. The decree may be erroneous in the opinion of the learned Judge, but that cannot make it a decree without jurisdiction and a nullity as the Court bad pecuniary jurisdistion and territorial jurisdiction over the case and it is not said that any of the parties was a minor unrepresented by a guardian ad litem or a lunaric without a committee. The learned Judge has clearly misapprehended the Full Bench case which he reeites in his judgment reported as Gora Chand Haldar v. Profulla Kumar Roy : AIR1925Cal907 . There it was clearly laid down that the Executing Court can only refuse to execute a decree which was a nullity as passed without jurisdiction either territorial or pecuniary or with reference to the persons bgfore it. Otherwise it is quite clear that an Executing Court cannot re...
Akshoy Coomar Gope and ors. Vs. Kali Narayan Roy on His Death His Heir ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.529
This is an appeal from the order of the Additional District Judge of Dacca remanding the case for the decision of the trial Court after setting aside the decree of that Court. The facts of the case are as follows: The defendant No. 3 was a servant of the plaintiff accountable for money received in the course of his business. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were his sureties. After the defendant No. 3 had ceased to act as the agent of the plaintiff a suit was brought for accounts and a decree was made against him in Suit No. 2139 of 1910. It appears that the plaintiff attempted to realize the amount decreed in his favour and failed itt his attempt to do so. That happened soma time in 1814. After that the plaintiff brought a suit against all the three defendants in 1917 for recovery of the amounD decreed to him in Suit No. 2139 of 1910. His suit was dismissed in the lower Appellate Court and the plaintiff preferred an appeal to this Court, which was Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 2466 of 1920,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›