Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SHALIGRAM versus DAULAT RAM

Decided
30 April 1962
Judges listed
J.L. KAPUR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1963] 2 S.C.R. 574 · 1962 INSC 177

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

JU.FUR, J.-This is an appeal on a certificate of the High Court under Art. 133(1) (c) of the Constitution against the judgment and order of the· High Court of Bombay. The appellant was the judgement-debtor and the decree-holder is the respondent.

p. 575

The decree was passed in August 26, 1931 in Summary 8uit No. 3437 of_ 1930 by the High Court of Bombay against three defendants: who were residents of Parbhani district in the former State -of Hyderabad. Before the decree was passed the appellant had applied for leave to defend and leave was conditionally grnnted on his depositing Rs. 5,000/within four weeks. This, he did not.do and on his failure to do as an ex-parte decree was granted for Rs. 52,032- 7-0 including costs and future interest at 6% per annum. The appellant did not file any written statement. The decree was transferred for execution to the District Judge, Bhir, in Hyderabad States. The respondent took out execution on June 18, 1954 in the Court of the District Judge, Bhir, to which o bjeotion was taken by the .appellant, imer alia, odn. t~e grofunhd thBat hbe hadH~oht suCbmittedhto the juris 10tion o t e om ay 1g ourt w ioh was a foreign court; and therefore the decree was a foreign decree and could not be executed in the Court at Bhir. This objection was overruled. Against that order appeal was taken to the High Court and it was held by that Court on July 29, 1958 that the appellant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and the appeal was therefore dismissed and the order of the Executing Court upheld. The · Letters Patent appeal againat that judgment was diemiBBed in limine on Ootober 24, 1958. It is agai· llllt that order that the appeal has been brought the certificate or the High Court under Art. l33(l)(c).

pp. 575–576

A person who appeal'IJ in obedience to the pro-

p. 576

of a foreign Court and applies for leave to defend the suit without objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court when he is not compellable by law to do so must be held to have voluntarily 1ubmitted to jurisdiction of 1uch Court Shaikh Atham Sahib v. DafJUd Sahib(l). Therefore it cannot be said that thiB decree suffered from the defects which a foreign ex·parle decree without such submission would suffer from. The order for transfer was made at a time when the Indian Code of Civil Procedure beoame applicable to the whole of India including the former territories of Hyderabad State. The order of tran11fer waa tlaerefore valid and effective and the decree could therefore be executed.

p. 576, margin F

The appeal, in our opinion, without merit and is therefore dillmisaed with 001ts.

p. 576, margin F

Appeal di.!mis&ed. ~.

p. 576, margin F