1 prayed that as the decree was one and indivisible, full satisfaction of the decree should be recorded exonerating the mortgaged property and also defendant No. ” But there a question of limitation had in fact been raised Famous Civil Advocates in Chandigarh the court below and what was sought by the appellant was leave to press in aid s. The State of Uttar Pradesh (2): Revenue Advocates in High Court Chandigarh order to ascertain whether there is repugnancy or not this court has laid down the following principles in Deep Chand v. 226 of the Constitution prohibiting them from selling those Municipal numbers and: from proceeding with the auction sale of properties on February It however appears from the order of the High Court on that writ petition that the reliefs claimed were a direction to the respondents i.
The object in saying what has been set out in the first charge was only to give notice to the respondents as to the ambit of the conspiracy to which they will have to answer and nothing more. It, along with two other applications, C. 226 of the Constitution to the High Court of Bombay. He was prosecuted for failing to maintain the books in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Umreth. Moreover, since this Court negatived the plea based on s.
I himself from any further liability in respect of the decretal debt. It was Civil Lawyers Chandigarh Application No. He is required to maintain books according to the provisions of the Moneylenders’ Act and the Rules made thereunder. 18 on the ground that the necessary facts were not established the approval of Lord Watson’s view could at best be said to be a mere obiter. I was negatived by the District Judge, but was accepted by the Chandigarh High Court Revenue Advocates Court on appeal which allowed the application of defendant No.
The expediency of adopting that course may be doubted when the plea cannot be disposed of without deciding nice questions of fact in considering which the court of ultimate review is placed in a much less advantageous position than the courts below. The Police Prosecutor in charge of the prosecution presented an application on July 20, 1961, praying that the Court be pleased to order the respondent to produce daily account book and ledger for the Samyat year 2013-2014. On March 6, 1947 defendant No.
This contention of defendant No. , the State of Bombay and the Mamlatdar of Baria Taluka to raise the attachment levied’ on Municipal Nos. 3215/- and put in a petition under s. 260 and 376 of 1952, was disposed of by a common judgment in C. It was in this connection that the observations quoted earlier were referred by this Court. 225 from complaining about it at any rate after their conviction by the trial court.
48,000/and odd in two instalments in discharge of their decretal debt. praying that the amount deposited by him together -with the payments already made by defendants 2 to 7 completely wiped off the amount due under the decree as scaled down by the High Court in favour of defendants 2 to 7; defendant No. The three amounts paid by defendants 265 2 to 7 totalled Rs. “I think that where the same power is given in two different bodies to number houses, the exercise of these powers concurrently by both bodies would be entirely destructive of the object for which they were conferred; they cannot, therefore, exist together, and in accordance with general principles, the power more recently conferred overrides that which was conferred by the prior Act.
The position taken up by defendant No. Even assuming for a moment that this charge is cumbersome in the absence of any objection by the respondents at the proper time and in the absence of any material from which we could infer prejudice, they are precluded by the provisions of s. The parties agree that what was alleged and what was prayed for by the appellant in his petition could be gathered from the order Exhibit P. The respondent in Criminal Appeal No.
” That was a case where action had been brought by a Clerk of the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London against the Metropolitan Board of Works for recovery of damages resulting from the defacement of numbers of houses by the Metropolitan Board of Works from houses in Farm Street, Aldersgate. The reply filed by the parties in that petition is Exhibit P. 196 and gives the case of the opposite party with respect to the allegations of the appellant in his petition.
The further question which is to be considered is whether there is any repugnancy between the old and the new law. 1 and directed that the court below should enter full satisfaction of the mortgage decree. 135 of 1963, Shyaralal Mohanlal, is a registered moneylender doing business as moneylender at Umreth. That petition is not printed in the appeal record. The appellant presented a writ petition under Art. 1 in substance was that the mortgage debt was one and indivisible and even though different amounts were mentioned as payable by two groups of defendants in the decree, the decree-holders were bound under the terms of the decree to release the entire mortgaged property even on payment of the amount directed to be paid by defendants 2 to 7.
260 of 1952 which is Exhibit P. 18 of the Limitation Act. The decree- holders then came up to this court in appeal (C. It was alleged in the application that the prosecution had already taken inspection of the said books and made copies from them, and that the original books were returned to the accused, and they were in his possession. Those numbers had been inscribed by the Commissioners of Sewers by virtue of the powers conferred Upon them by the City of London Sewers Act, 1848, with regard to the sanitation and management of the City of London.
728 and 642 of Deogad Baria, the issue of a writ of mandamus or directions under Art. 1 deposited in court a sum of Rs. The Metropolis Local Management Act, (18 & 19 Viet.