Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges

    Prosunno Coomar Roy Chowdry v. Haran Chunder Chatterjee

    Jackson, J.:— The point in question here, viz., as to the authority of the District Court to issue the notice of foreclosure under section 8, Regulation XVII of 1806, has been, as pointed out by Baboo Kashee Kant Sen, who appears for the respondent, authoritatively settled by the Judicial Committee in the Privy Council in a case to be found in 4 Moore's Indian Appeals, 392 — Rasmoni Debea v. Pran Kishen Das, and unless there were absolute legislative provisions to the contrary, we should certainly follow that ruling, and I may be permitted to add, the reason of it appears unquestionable. The property mortgaged in this istance lay partly, perhaps originally wholly, within the district of Backergunj, and the instrument of mortgage, we understand, was registered in that district. Clearly, therefore, that was the proper Court to apply for proceedings in foreclosure. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Prosunno Coomar Roy Chowdry v. Haran Chunder Chatterjee
    (Jan 22, 1880)