Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (1.43 seconds)
Documents citing Kancherla Lakshminarayana vs Mattaparthi Syamala & Ors on 14 March, 2008

Aniruddha S/O Sadashiv Pande vs The Divisional Joint Registrar ... on 12 September, 2018

In fact, in the case of Kancherla Lakshminarayana .vs. Mattaparthi Syamala (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the question as to when could a property be said to be "sold". It has been found that a property could be said to be sold in the context of such attachment and auction when confirmation of sale took place. Till then, the auction purchaser like respondent no.5 had only a nebulous right and there was no vested right created in his favour.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - M Pitale - Full Document

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

Arjun Bulandani & Anr vs Babita Chawla on 9 August, 2012

10.Kancherla Lakshminarayana vs Mattaparthi Syamala & Ors 2008 (14) SCC 258 - held that the provisions of order XXI rule 58 CPC read with the provisions of order XXI rule 101 CPC spell out the duty of the court to adjudicate all the questions relating to the rights of the parties and that the executing court had failed to consider the provisions in MCA No. 02/12 Page 10 Arjun Bulandani & Anr vs Babita Chawla the proper perspective and it should have decided as to whether the decree between the first the second respondents is a collusive decree merely meant to defeat the right of the appellant.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Unknown vs M/S.Il & Fs Financial Services Limited on 28 September, 2022

8. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel for Trimex, submitted that the applications are not maintainable under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC at this juncture. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kancherla Lakshminarayana v. Mattaparthi Syamala and Ors.(Kancherla Lakshminarayanana), (2008) 14 SCC 258, and, in particular, paragraph 23 and 26 thereof, to contend that the rights under Order XXI Rule 58 cannot be exercised at this juncture. Since the banks have a charge over other assets, he submitted that they have the option of filing a suit with regard to other assets.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Ramamoorthy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next