Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing C. Ganapathi Mudaliar vs Krishnamachariar And Ors. on 17 February, 1914

Phoolchand And Anr. vs Badri Prasad on 19 August, 1952

4. The second question is whether we should grant leave in this particular case and whether the point in dispute is of general public importance. The point in dispute is whether it is open to the judgment-debtor to come to Law Court and ask it to declare that the sale is a nullity after the court has already confirmed the sale. Learned counsel for the opposite party admits that the point is of general public importance; but his contention is that the point is settled by the decision of Their Lordships of the Privy Council in -- 'Ganapathy Mudaliar v. Krishnamachariar', 45 Ind App 54 (PC), and therefore the law being settled the case is not a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the applicants concedes that if the law is settled by a decision of the highest Court, it would not be proper for this court to grant a certificate under Article 133(1)(c), but his contention is that the law in this case is not settled. What we have therefore to see is whether the law on this point is settled or not.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Abdul Ghani vs Mahendra Kumar And Ors. on 18 September, 1978

"It is important to remember that after the decision of the Privy Council in Ganapathy's case, 45 Ind App 54: (AIR 1917 PC 121) there has been an amendment of Section 47 as a result of which the purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree, whether he is the decree-holder or not, is unquestionably a party to the suit for the purpose of Section 47. Having regard to this, all questions arising between the auction purchaser and the judgment-debtor must in our view be determined by the executing court and not by a separate suit."
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1