Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Jugal Kishore v. Raw Cotton Co. AIR 1955 SC 376

    Uploaded by

    Gunjan Joshi
    The Supreme Court held that the Raw Cotton Company could not claim to be the transferee of the decree under Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While the company had received transfer of debts and properties from Habib and Sons by a document, the decree was passed in favor of Habib and Sons as they were still the plaintiffs on record when the decree was issued. A decree cannot be transferred before it comes into existence, so Habib and Sons could not transfer the future decree to the company. The company did not take steps to be substituted as plaintiffs in the pending suit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Jugal Kishore v. Raw Cotton Co. AIR 1955 SC 376

    Uploaded by

    Gunjan Joshi
    2K views9 pages
    The Supreme Court held that the Raw Cotton Company could not claim to be the transferee of the decree under Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While the company had received transfer of debts and properties from Habib and Sons by a document, the decree was passed in favor of Habib and Sons as they were still the plaintiffs on record when the decree was issued. A decree cannot be transferred before it comes into existence, so Habib and Sons could not transfer the future decree to the company. The company did not take steps to be substituted as plaintiffs in the pending suit.

    Original Title

    8. Jugal Kishore v. Raw Cotton Co. AIR 1955 SC 376

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court held that the Raw Cotton Company could not claim to be the transferee of the decree under Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While the company had received transfer of debts and properties from Habib and Sons by a document, the decree was passed in favor of Habib and Sons as they were still the plaintiffs on record when the decree was issued. A decree cannot be transferred before it comes into existence, so Habib and Sons could not transfer the future decree to the company. The company did not take steps to be substituted as plaintiffs in the pending suit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    2K views9 pages

    Jugal Kishore v. Raw Cotton Co. AIR 1955 SC 376

    Uploaded by

    Gunjan Joshi
    The Supreme Court held that the Raw Cotton Company could not claim to be the transferee of the decree under Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While the company had received transfer of debts and properties from Habib and Sons by a document, the decree was passed in favor of Habib and Sons as they were still the plaintiffs on record when the decree was issued. A decree cannot be transferred before it comes into existence, so Habib and Sons could not transfer the future decree to the company. The company did not take steps to be substituted as plaintiffs in the pending suit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 9

    Jugal Kishore v. Raw Cotton Co.

    AIR 1955 SC
    376
    • O.21, R.16, Civil P.C

    • When there is a transfer of a decree either by operation of law or by


    mutual private arrangement such decree can be executed by
    transferee after permission is granted under order 21 rule 16 of
    CPC. ... Under such circumstances notice has to go not only to the
    transferor decree holder but also to all the judgment debtors.
    • Two persons used to carry on business as merchants and pucca
    ‘adatias’ in bullion and cotton at Bombay under the name and style of
    Habib and Sons.That firm instituted a suit in the Bombay City Civil
    Court, against the present appellant Jugalkishore Saraf for the
    recovery. When that summary suit was still pending a document was
    executed whereby it was agreed that the two partners would transfer
    and M/s Raw Cotton Company Lmt. Would accept the transfer of
    • Would accept the transfer of interalia, all book and other debts due to
    them in connection with their business in Bombay and full benefit of
    all securities for the debts and all other property to which they were
    entitled in connection with the said business.The respondent
    company did not take steps under O.22, R.10, CP.C to get themselves
    substituted as plaintiffs in the place and stead of Habib and sons, the
    Plaintiffs on record, but allowed the suit to be continued in the name
    of the Original plaintiffs.
    • A decree was passed in the summary suit in favour of Habib and Sons
    being the plaintiff on record. The respondent Company presented
    before the Bombay City be an application for execution under O.21,
    R.11, CP.C.
    Issue
    • Whether the Respondent company can claim to be the transferees of
    the decree within the meaning of O.21, R.16, Civil P.C
    Observation
    • Sequence of events contemplated by the Rule of O.21, R.16, CP.C- 1)-
    That a decree has been passed and
    • 2)-that decree has been transferred i)-by assignment in writing or ii)-
    by operation of law.
    • A literal construction of the rule leads to no apparent absurdity.
    • The residuary item covered “All properties to which the vendors are
    ‘entitled and not all properties to which they might in the future
    • become entitled”.
    • Upon the assignment of the debt the respondent company
    undoubtedly became entitled to get themselves substituted under
    O.22, R.10 as plaintiffs in the pending suit but they did not choose to
    do so and allowed the transferors to continue the suit and decreed to
    be passed in their favour.
    Conclusion
    • At the date of the transfer of the debt to the respondent company the
    transferors could not transfer the decree because the decree did not
    exist.

    You might also like