Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Kancherla Lakshminarayana vs Mattaparthi Syamala & Ors on 14 March, 2008

State Bank Of India vs Rajshakar S/O Shankerappa Ors on 1 October, 2012

16. Yet again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kancherla Lakshminarayana Vs Mattaparthi Shyamala and others reported in AIR 2008 SC 21 2069 has held an attachment cannot be free from prior obligations and necessary sequatar is that after the factum of sale the objection would still lie before the sale is made absolute. In the said judgment it has been held as under:
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Sri R Shankarappa vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary on 7 November, 2022

In this regard, learned Senior Counsel has also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KANCHERLA LAKSHMINARAYANA v. MATTAPARTHI SYAMALA reported in (2008)14 SCC 258 and contended that as there was cloud in the property in question in the present writ petition and the 11 WP NO.3023 OF 2016 obligation has been created by virtue of the compromise entered into in Original Suit of 8257 of 2011 on 13th December, 2012, and therefore, learned Senior Counsel denied the claim made by the respondent No.4-Bank. Sri D.L.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel also referred to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.1112 of 2012 connected with writ petition No.12518 of 2013 wherein this Court, by order dated 29th October, 2015, quashed the sale notice and same was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.105 of 2016 by judgment dated 21st July, 2017 and contended that the impugned notices are liable to be quashed. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel also referred to Sections 95, 99 and 101 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 and argued that impugned notices are liable to be quashed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri R Shankarappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2022

11. As on the day, the petitioner has not acquired any title over the subject property. The petitioner claims to be the agreement holder. The petitioner will not get any right on the basis of alleged agreement of sale to challenge the impugned order. Respondent No.8 has not challenged the impugned order. The petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition challenging the impugned order. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SALEM ADVOCATES BAR ASSOCIATION, TAMILNADU VS. UNION OF INDIA, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 and KANCHERLA LAKSHMINARAYANA (SUPRA). The learned Single Judge has referred to those judgments in para-11 of the impugned order and also considered the submissions of the parties and passed a well-reasoned order. The learned Single Judge was justified in passing the well-reasoned order. We do not find any error in the impugned order. We decline W.A.No.1139/2022 15 to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P B Varale - Full Document
1