Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (3.01 seconds)
Documents citing Sadhanandhan vs Leelavathy on 10 September, 1987

C.Ramalingam vs M/S.Central Bank Of India on 7 November, 2022

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1988 (1) MLJ 122 in Sadhanandhan Vs Leelavathy, for the proposition that only after seizure of the movable property found in and upon the houses mentioned in the warrant, the affected persons can come forward with an application either under Section 60 or 61 of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9 C.R.P.No.158 of 2022 Act. As between the applicant and the debtor, the Act does not contemplate adjudication of any disputed questions. Even as per the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, question of invoking Section 60 of the Act would arise only after seizure of movables. In the case on hand, admittedly, the movables were not seized. At that stage, the respondent is not entitled to invoke Section 60 of the Act. In view of the clear wordings in Section 36 that every order made by Registrar in any proceedings shall be subject to the same provisions, with regard to the new trial application, I hold that NTA.No.1 of 2021 filed by respondent is maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.Ramalingam vs M/S.Central Bank Of India on 7 November, 2022

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1988 (1) MLJ 122 in Sadhanandhan Vs Leelavathy, for the proposition that only after seizure of the movable property found in and upon the houses mentioned in the warrant, the affected persons can come forward with an application either under Section 60 or 61 of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9 C.R.P.No.158 of 2022 Act. As between the applicant and the debtor, the Act does not contemplate adjudication of any disputed questions. Even as per the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, question of invoking Section 60 of the Act would arise only after seizure of movables. In the case on hand, admittedly, the movables were not seized. At that stage, the respondent is not entitled to invoke Section 60 of the Act. In view of the clear wordings in Section 36 that every order made by Registrar in any proceedings shall be subject to the same provisions, with regard to the new trial application, I hold that NTA.No.1 of 2021 filed by respondent is maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1