SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1962 Supreme(SC) 190

A.K.SARKAR, J.L.KAPUR, N.RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, K.C.DAS GUPTA, J.R.MUDHOLKAR
Shalig Ram – Appellant
Versus
Firm Daulatram Kundanmal – Respondent


Advocates:
GANPAT RAI, M.S.K.Shastri, M.S.NARASIMHAN

Judgment

KAPUR, J. : This is an appeal on a certificate of the High Court under Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay. The appellant was the judgment debtor and the decree-holder is the respondent.

2. The decree was passed on August 26. 1981, in Summary Suit No. 2437 of 1930 by the High Court of Bombay against three defendants who-were residents of Parbhani District in the former State of Hyderabad. Before the decree was passed the appellant had applied for leave to defend and leave was conditionally granted on his depositing Rs. 5,000 within four weeks. This, he did not do and on his failure to do so an ex parte decree was granted for Rs. 52,032-7-0 including costs and future interest at 6 per cent per annum. The appellant did not file any written statement. The decree was transferred for execution to the District Judge, Bhir, in Hyderabad State. The respondent took out execution on June 18, 1954, in the Court of the District Judge, Bhir, to which objection was taken by the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that he had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court which was a foreign Court and, therefore, t




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top