Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing Kishori Lal vs Sales Officer, District Land ... on 24 August, 2006

Yuvraj Suka Mahajan And Anr vs Bajirao Martand Mali And Anr on 6 February, 2019

c) 2006 (7) SCC 496, (Kishori Lal Vs. Sales Officer, District Land Development Bank & Ors); d) 2009 (10) SCC 584, (Ashok K. Jha & ors. Vs. Garden Silk Mills & Anr.); e) 2011 (2) Mh.L.J. 916, (Advani Oerlikon Ltd. ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 09:36:52 ::: 10 903 Letters Patent Appeal 108 of 2012.odt Machindra Govind Makasare and others); f) 2016 (13) SCC 561, (Delhi Development
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - T V Nalawade - Full Document

Kulbir Singh vs Inspector General Hq Ftr Bsf Punjab And ... on 31 May, 2019

13. Learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on various judgments where it has been held that no new plea can be taken when the same was not agitated before the Trial Court. They are 'Central Indian Machinery Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of M.P. and another' 1997(9) SCC 475, 'R.K.Khandelwal vs. State of U.P. and others' 1981 AIR (SC) 1673, 'M/s BSN Joshi and Sons Ltd. vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd.' 2006(11) SCC 548 and 'Kishori Lal vs. Sales Officer, District Land Development Bank and other' 2011(7) RCR (Civil) 233.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A Monga - Full Document

Hasham Abbas Sayyad vs Usman Abbas Sayyad & Ors on 12 December, 2006

Following the said decision, herein also we would direct that in the event of compliance of the aforementioned directions, the auction shall stand set aside and the decree for partition shall stand satisfied. The appeal is allowed subject to the aforementioned observations and directions. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 214 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Revaben Wd/O Ambalal vs Vinubhai Purshottambhai on 15 January, 2013

Similarly, in the case of KISHORI LAL VS. SALES OFFICER reported in (2006) 7 SCC 496, a decision relied upon by Mr. Desai, another two-judge-bench of the Supreme Court relied upon the above case of Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar [supra] and repeated the said proposition. We are, in these cases, not concerned with a situation where substantive part of cause of action falls under Article 226 but in the cases before us, as pointed out by us earlier, no part comes under exercise of original jurisdiction and only provision applicable is under Article 227. Those two decisions, thus, do not help the appellants in any way.
Gujarat High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 8 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Smt. Pallavi vs Shri Raj Kamal on 5 December, 2007

At the outset it shall be mentioned that the objection raised by the counsel for the respondent regarding the maintainability of this appeal before this Court cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the observation given by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 584 of 2003 dated 17.10.2003 may not held the respondent in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in (2006) 7 SCC 496 [Kishori Lal v. Sales Officer]. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are as follows:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - M K Vinayagam - Full Document

Shashibhusan (Dead) Through L.Rs. vs District Co-Operative Land ... on 16 January, 2008

In the matter of Kishori Lal (supra), recovery proceedings were initiated against the borrower and their mortgaged lands, as security of loan, were sold by the bank and sale certificate was issued in the name of the auction purchaser. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society dismissed their appeal against the confirmation of sale, however, the Board of Revenue allowed their second appeal and set aside the sale. The Sales Officer of the Bank filed a writ petition against the decision of the Board of Revenue and the writ petition was allowed by the High Court on the ground that in view of Section 27 of the Adhiniyam irregularities in the auction cannot be a ground for impeaching the title of the purchaser and non-service of the notice was a procedural irregularity. The Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court as not maintainable. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the appeal of the appellant/borrower with the following observations:
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - D Mishra - Full Document

Bank vs Kishori Lal on 23 April, 2019

In these circumstances, the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No.99 of 2017, titled as Punjab National Bank vs. Kishori Lal, on 21.12.2018 and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba, H.P., in Criminal ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2019 22:01:15 :::HCHP Appeal 5 of 2019, titled as Kishori Lal vs. Punjab National Bank, .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A M Goel - Full Document

Sri Sopanarao Survey S/O Late Tukaram vs Sri Ganapati S/O Shamburao on 7 August, 2008

5. Looldzigto tn¢ ;;.atu;is«s§f the relief claimed by the appellant in «-'"t]V1_e petition, iii'o!.1.i:«'considemd opinion that it can only be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The'fnc'£s also A ' ed so that it could not have been a petition % 'filed uniefimiicic 225 ofthe Constitution of india. 'Ff 22 senior counsel for the appellant then placed before $1.; judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishori La! Vs. Ofilcer, District Land Development Bank & Ora. [2006 AIRBCW 6126] and has pressed into sexvice Fare: 14, which news as thus:
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1