cover image: The Calcutta Weekly Notes  Monday  February 7  1944

Premium

20.500.12592/hxwvpz

The Calcutta Weekly Notes Monday February 7 1944

1944

The only contravention of the MoneLenders Act which the Petitioner in the case of Protap Mull v. Iswar Gopal Jiu. [...] 30 and in doing so contended that the interest allowed for the period between the date of the final mortgage decree and the date of sale should also be taken into account. [...] " When once a decree has been passed the loan or debt as the subject of enforcement no longer exists: it is in effect merged in the decree and the allowance of interest on the decree is not the allowance of additional interest on the loan or debt." So it was observed by the Judicial Committee in the case of Kusum Kumari v. Debi Prosad 63 I. A. 114: s. c. 40 C. W. N. 328. [...] OR PROHIBITIONS IN THE Batuknath Bhattacharya A. B. L. 1943: Jogendra research prize of the Cain Comparative Indian Law The reform of Hindu law is now engaging the serious attention of the public and the legislature. [...] The appointment of a receiver does not affect the right of a creditor to proceed to execute a decree by attachment of tie prperty intended to be received until and uless the appointment of a receiver has been perfected and the receiver is actually in possession.
law
Pages
2
Published in
India
SARF Document ID
sarf.100104
Segment Pages Author Actions
The Calcutta Weekly Notes Monday January 24 1944
xxvii-xxviii unknown view

Related Topics

All