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

1952 Supreme(SC) 89

VIVIAN BOSE, GHULAM HASAN, M.C.MAHAJAN, S.R.DASS
Mohanlal Goenka – Appellant
Versus
Benoy Kishna Mukherjee – Respondent


Judgement

MAHAJAN J.: (Bose J. agreeing) in our opinion, the decision can be rested on either of the grounds which have been raised by our brothers Das and Ghulam Hasan respectively. We would therefore allow the appeal on both the grounds.

2. Das J.: I have had the privilege of perusing the judgment delivered by my learned Brother Hasan and I agree with his conclusion that this appeal should be allowed. I would, however, prefer to rest my decision on a ground different from that which has commended itself to my learned Brother and as to which I do not wish to express any opinion on this occasion.

3. The relevant facts material for the purpose of disposing of this appeal have been very clearly and fully set forth in the judgment of Hasan J. and I need not set them out in detail here. Suffice it to say that on 12-6-1931 the High Court, Original Side, which is the Court which had passed the decree, transmitted the same for execution to the Asansol Court through the District Judge of Burdwan and that the Asansol Court thereupon acquired jurisdiction to execute the decree against properties situated within its territorial limits. The application for execution made by the decree-holder whi
















































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