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

1922 Supreme(SC) 29

LORD PARMOOR, LORD SUMNER, LORD ATKINSON, LORD BUCKMASTER
PRAMATHA NATH ROY – Appellant
Versus
LEE – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitors for appellant:J. J. Edwards & Co. Solicitors for respondent: Watkins & Hunter.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 131 of 1920) from a judgment and decree (January 29, 1919) of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction affirming an order made by Greaves J. (July 26, 1918).

The respondent sued the appellant in the High Court at Calcutta to recover a sum of Rs.27,443, and on February 14, 1918, obtained ex parte a decree for that sum, the appellants defence having been struck out for default in complying with an order to give inspection of documents. On March 23, 1918, on the application of the appellant, it was ordered that on his furnishing security for Rs.27,000 to the satisfaction of the registrar on or before April 10, 1918, and paying certain costs, the decree should be set aside and the suit restored for hearing. The time was subsequently extended, but the appellant failed to satisfy the registrar that security which he proposed was sufficient.

On July 1, 1918, the appellant applied to the High Court for an order directing the registrar to accept

Law Rep. 49 Ind. App. 307 ( 1921- 1922)

Pramatha Nath Roy V. Lee 130

Rs.27,000 as security from him, and directing the ex parte decree to be set aside. On July 26 the application was heard by Greaves J. and was dismissed.

On

















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