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

1954 Supreme(Cal) 185

S.R.DASS, MALLICK
AMARENDRA LAL KHAN – Appellant
Versus
MANINDRANATH ROY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
BANKIM CHANDRA BANERJI, SAMBHUNATH BANERJEE, SARAT CHANDRA JAIN, UMAPRASAD MUKHERJI

S. R. DAS GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the decree-holder against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Midnapore, on an application under Section 47, Civil P. C. , dismissing an application for execution for the balance of a rent decree.

( 2 ) THE matter arises in this way: On 17-4-1935, the appellant obtained a decree in a rent suit for the sum of Rs. 5,727-15-0. Thereafter the debtors went to the Debt Settlement Board, but ultimately their application was dismissed for non-prosecution by the Debt Settlement Board. Then on 1-11-1941, a petition for execution of the decree was filed by the appellant. In the application which was made the assistance of the Court was sought by attachment and sale of the movables ' belonging to the judgment-debtors. Three objections were filed by the judgment-debtors under Section 47, Civil P. C. in the said execution case and as a result thereof three miscellaneous cases were started. The main ground of objection taken by the judgment-debtors was based on Section 168a, liengal Tenancy Act; in other words, it was contended that in view of the provisions of Section 168 (1) (a), Bengal Tenancy Act no sale of the movables sought to be attac








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