REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Prohit Swaroop Narain Appellant

V/S

Subh Karan Radha Mohan Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

'ISSACS & SONS V. SALBSTEIN' [REFERRED TO]
'FIRM RAMCHAND MANJIMAL V. FIRM GOBERDHANDAS VISHANDAS 'RATANCHAND' [REFERRED TO]
'LAXMI KUMAR V. JAMUNADAS' [REFERRED TO]
'MOHAMMAD AMIN BROTHERS LTD. V. DOMINION OF INDIA' [REFERRED TO]
DR. HORI RAM SINGH V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
'SEVAK JERANCHOD BHOGILAL V. DAKORE TEMPLE COMMITTEE' [REFERRED TO]
'WEST JAMURIA COAL CO. V. BHOLANATH ROY' [REFERRED TO]
ASRUMATI DEBI VS. KUMAR RUPENDRA DEB RAIKOT [REFERRED TO]
MULUGU RAGHAVACHARYULU VS. MULUGU SRI VENKATA RAMANUJA CHARYULU [REFERRED TO]
DAJISAHEB VS. SHANKARRAO VITHALRAO [REFERRED TO]
PUROHIT SWARUPNARAIN VS. GOPINATH [REFERRED TO]
RATANLAL VS. BHAIRONDAN [REFERRED TO]
TOBACCO MANUFACTURERS (INDIA) LTD. V. THE STATE [REFERRED TO]
V M ABDUL RAHMAN VS. D K CASSIM AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED VS. CHIEF REVENUE AUTHORITY OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA SINGH DUDHORIA VS. THE MIDNAPORE ZEMINDARY CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
GUNDAPUNEEDI VEERANNA AND ORS. VS. GUNDAPUNEEDI CHINA VENKANNA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
H. CHANDANMULL AND CO., BY PROPRIETOR, C. LAXMICHAND MEHTA VS. MOHANLAL M. MEHTA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by Prohit Swaroop Narain for leave to appeal to Supreme Court under Art. 133(1)(a) and (b), Constitution of India and S. 109(a), Civil P.C.

(2.) THE order against which the leave to appeal is sought was pronounced by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No. 80 of 1954 on 25 -11 -1954. The applicant was a defendant in a suit brought by the opposite party M/s. Subh Karan Radha Mohan for the recovery of Rs. 28,9,711 -10 -3 by sale of certain property said to have been mortgaged by the applicant with the opposite party. Two issues namely Nos. 9 and 11 were framed by the Court of first instance on the preliminary objection of the defendant and they are as follows:

(3.) AS to issue No. 11, the Court came to the conclusion that the suit was premature so far as the sale of mortgaged property was concerned. But it held that the plaintiff could get a money decree for the amount sued for. Thereafter, the case was fixed for further evidence of parties.

Click here to view full judgment.

PROHIT SWAROOP NARAIN Vs. SUBH KARAN RADHA MOHAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address