Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 169 (1.91 seconds)
Documents citing Sardar Govindrao Mahadik & Anr vs Devi Sahai & Ors on 15 December, 1981

Govindaswami Pillai vs Manoranjitham Ammal And Another on 13 March, 1998

22. S.S. Subramani, J. has also taken an identical view in Vellaiyan v. Mookammal, 1997 TLNJ 282 and the learned judge while following Govindrao v. Devi Sabai, and R. Ranganayaki Ammal v. Namagiri Venkataraman, 1994 (2) L.W. 148 reiterated the principles that an agreement for sale does not create any interest in land and while considering the question as to when a merger takes place, the learned Judge held thus:-
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Rachamalla Nagi Reddy vs Sri Pasurula Naganna on 3 August, 2004

5. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of money and obtained an order of attachment of properties of the petitioner before judgment under Order-38 Rule-5 of Code of Civil Procedure. Eventually, the suit was decreed in his favour and an execution petition had also been filed in the year 2002. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, it was brought to the notice of the Executing Court that the Judgment-debtor had already filed I.P. No. 17 of 2003 wherein the decree holder was figured as respondent No. 1. Notice seems to have been served on the decree-holder also. At that stage, the decree-holder had filed an application under Order-21 Rule-6 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to sell the properties mentioned in the Execution Petition schedule. At that stage, in fact, it was brought to the notice of the Executing Court by the judgment-debtor that the properties sought to be sold by the decree-holder were already the subject matter of I.P. No. 17 of 2003 and the said Insolvency Petition has to be adjudicated and the properties were already kept in the custody of the Receiver. Therefore, it was contended inter alia by the judgment-debtor that the properties mentioned in the Execution Petition schedule, which were under attachment by virtue of the orders passed by the decreeing Court under Order-38 Rule-5 of Code of Civil Procedure, cannot be put to sale. The Court below relying on the judgment reported in "SARDAR GOVINDRAO MAHADIK AND ANOTHER V. DEVI SAHAI AND OTHERS", and in "VASAVI AND COMPANY V. NAMPALLY PADMA AND OTHERS", held that filing of Insolvency Petition and pendency of the same was not a bar to proceed with the Execution Petition. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

G.P.Vijayakumar vs The District Collector

16. Although the learned counsel is perfectly justified in the aforesaid contention, in my view, the said principles laid down by the Apex Court in its judgment in Janatha Textiles (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of this case because a reading of the judgment in Mohan Wahi (supra) shows that in that judgment also, the Apex Court has made reference to the judgments in Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh [(1967) 2 SCR 77], Sardar Govindrao Mahadik v. Devi Sahai [(1982) 1 SCC 237] and Padanathil Ruqmini Amma v. P.K.Abdulla [1996 (7) SCC 668]. After making reference to these judgments, the Apex Court in Mohan Wahi held that "suffice it to observe that these are the cases of auction sale held under Order 21 of the C.P.C. and, therefore, may not apply to the case of an auction sale held under Second Schedule of the Income-tax Act in view of Rule 56 contained therein. Moreover, in these decisions also, the Supreme Court has contemplated situations where in spite of the auction sale having been held and no application for setting aside the sale having been moved, yet in exceptional situation the sale may be refused to be confirmed and may be set aside." Thereafter, the Apex WPC.20889/11 22 Court has also held that while the sanctity of sale of property by public auction has to be protected, at the same time, a citizen faced with proceedings for recovery of assumed arrears should not be deprived of his property in spite of judicial or quasi judicial pronouncement holding, before the sale was confirmed, that there was no arrears. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the 6th respondent and reject the writ petition on that basis.
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - A Dominic - Full Document

Vellaiyan vs Nookkammal on 4 April, 1997

It is seen that the decision in 1979 TLNJ 311 had not taken note of the decision of the Supreme Court in Govindarao Mahadik v. Devi Sahai, . The observation therein that the old theory that the contracting party must be inducted into possession pursuant to the agreement, is no longer valid, appears to be to widely stated and also against the dictum of the Supreme Court, and cannot therefore, he pressed into service by learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioner."
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tamil Nadu Brick Industries, Chennai vs Ito, Chennai on 11 May, 2018

It is clear from the above decision that the transferee to the contract must have done some act in furtherance of the contact. In this case, the appellant had applied to various Government agencies for approval and also conducted survey and such other activities relating to improvement of the 12 I.T.A. No.744/Chny/17 land and for preparation of the sale for housing project. In this regard, clauses 6(c) and 9 of MOA elaborate the nature of developmental works to be carried out by the developer simultaneously on execution of JDA. The relevant clauses are reproduced as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next