LexLords Simranjeet NRI Legal Services By NRI Legal Services LexLords

It was a decree for money 551 passed against the NRI legal services representatives of a deceased debtor and it provided expressly that the decretal amount was to be realised out of the estate of the deceased in the hands of the NRI legal services (online) representatives. Section 53, Civil Procedure Code, it is admitted, being only a rule of procedure, cannot create or take away any substantive right. 1956 and also the subsequent order dated 30.

Before advancing submissions in respect of issues of law, Mr. 402 of the goods for purposes of the English Factors Act. Wheth- er the property which the sons obtained on partition during the lifetime of the father is liable for a debt covered by a decree passed after partition and whether section 53 has at all any application to a case of this character are ques- tions which we have to determine in connection with the second and the third points raised by appellants.

As nothing was said in the compro- mise decree in the present case about the 552 right of the decreeholder to avail herself of other provi- sions of the Code which might be available to her in law, we cannot say that the plaintiff has by agreement expressly given up those rights. Therefore, it is contended that they have not suffered any adverse consequences on account of merger; rather they became permanent employees of the Corporation, obtained promotions and on retirement availed all the lawfully admissible benefits of CPF and gratuity without any protest and demur.

The first point, therefore, by itself is of no assistance to the appellants. Ordinarily, the offence of larceny by trick, according to the English law, can be committed in two ways: This means that if the owner allows an agent to have his goods 'on hire or for repair and the agent later on makes- up his mind to steal or misappropriate them and sell them to another, the agent may be guilty of larceny as bailee but the owner's consent to his possession could not be affected thereby.

"Subject to provisions of this Act, every advocate whose name is entered in the [State roll] shall be entitled as of right to practise throughout the territories to which this Act extends," (i) in all courts including the Supreme Court; The above incident detail (information come in light) on 28. He showed by way of illustration that one of the respondents Mr. made the following oftquoted observation :- "However fraudulent a person in actual custody may have been, in obtaining the possession, provided it does not amount to larceny by trick and however grossly he may abuse confidence reposed in him, or violate the mandate under which he got possession, he can, by his disposition, give a good title to the purchaser.

The only other question that can possibly arise by reason of the decree being a compromise decree is, whether the parties themselves have, by agreement, excluded the operation of section 53, Civil Procedure Code. Pockett's Bristol Channel Steam Packet Company( 1), Collins L. That order clearly stipulated that he will be governed by the rules in force and those that may subsequently be framed for the officers of the Corporation. Sharma, another respondent was promoted as Sr.

Rakesh Dwivedi first took us through the letter dated 16. " The opinion of the learned judge in regard to the so- called exception where there is a "larceny by trick" has been the subject of much comment both favourable and adverse in later cases as we shall see presently; but the main proposition enunciated by him has never been disputed( 2 ). But curiously enough in English law a difference is made between larceny by bailee and larceny by trick ; and if in the illustration given above the agent instead of making up his mind subsequently to steal the goods had that dishonest intention at the very beginning when he got possession, he is guilty of "larceny by trick" and the possession in law is deemed to remain with the owner and he is regarded as "taking" without the owner's consent.

2006 held branch clearing of the general account in clearing it make clear that in Udhavi schedule 07 Rupees 13,00,000 entries which was originate by Malviya Nagar Durg Branch, it was not responded by Durg Branch. Even larceny by a bailee does not exclude consent according to the English decisions. e, PEPSU Roadways was merged with the Corporation by the decision of the State Government. 1956, the respondents under then prevailing service rules of the State Government were not entitled to pension as temporary employees even till their department i.

It is only when the liability of the sons to pay the debts of their father in certain circumstances exists under the Hindu law, is the operation of the section attracted and not otherwise. 1965 had opted to serve the Corporation. Dwivedi emphasised that being temporary employees of PEPSU Roadways till 15. The terms of the decree that was passed in this suit, though based on the consent of the parties, are precisely the same as are contemplated by section 52 (1) of the Civil procedure Code.

It is certainly possible for the parties to agree among themselves that the decree should be executed only against a particular property and no other, but when any statutory right is sought to be contracted out, it is necessary that express words of exclusion must be usedl. Right of advocates to practise. Exclusion cannot be in- ferred merely from the fact that the compromise made no reference to such right.

Consequently the decreeholder would be entitled to call in aid the provision of section 53 of the Code; and if any property in the hands of the sons, other than what they received by inheritance from their father, is liable under the Hindu law to pay the father's debts, such property could be reached by the de- creeholder in execution of the decree by virtue of the provision of section 53 of the Civil Procedure Code. On behalf of the appellants learned senior counsel Mr.

Trehan through letter dated 01. This apparently involves a NRI legal services fiction, for although the goods are actually delivered over by the owner to the accused person, yet because of the trick committed by the latter the owner is still supposed to continue in possession of the goods and the NRI Legal Services accused is held guilty of larceny for taking possession of the goods against the will of the owner. 1986 of the Corporation by which Mr.

It is argued on behalf of the respondent, and we think rightly, that as the decree fulfils the conditions of section 52 (1) of the Civil Proce- dure Code, it would attract all the incidents which attach by law to a decree of that character. He also placed reliance on order dated 02. Depot Manager which he accepted.