Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (2.06 seconds)
Documents citing Manjamma vs S.N. Suryanarayana Rao And Ors. on 11 October, 1985

Amrit Dye Chem Industries vs Bonzanza Durgs And Chemicals Ltd. on 1 September, 1998

Cases 558 (Rajasthan) (7) AIR 1989 Karnataka 90 (M/s.Hotel Nataraj v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation) (8) AIR 1997 Kerala 75 (Achamma Cyriac v. Kerala Financial Corporation) (9) AIR 1993 Orissa 238 (Sk. Kamiruddin v. Union of India) (10) AIR 1985 SC 1147 (Ram & Shyam Company v. State of Haryana) (11) 1990 Lab.I.C. 756 (Jute Mill Mazdoor Sabha, Katihar v. State of Bihar) (12) AIR 1992 Allahabad 108 (Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation v. M/s. Gajendra Cold Storage (P) Ltd.) (13) AIR 1986 Karnataka 268 (Manjamma v. S.N. Suryanarayana Rao) (14) AIR 1991 SC 478 (M/s. Seth Kashi Ram Chemical (India) v. State of Haryana) (15) AIR 1993 P & H 156 (M/s. Bags and Cortons v. Haryana Financial Corporation) (16) AIR 1993 A.P.166 (M/s. Arisetty Satyanarayana Murty Sugars & Industries v.The Sub-Collector and others) (17) AIR 1988 Orissa 60 (Pitabash v. Orissa State Financial Corporation) (18) AIR 1973 Mysore 131 (Mohammed Ali Abdul Chanimomin v. Bisahemi Kom Abdulla Saheb Momin) (19) AIR 1983 Rajasthan 161 (Sayar Bai v. Yashoda Bai) On the question of lis pendence and S. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and Order 21 Rule 102 C.P.C., he has cited 1964(4)SCR 892 and AIR 1985 Gujarat 184 (Kanbi Vaju Vasta v. Kanbi Popat Vasta) and has submitted that the registration of lis pendence is required only in State of Bombay and not in any other State. We do not consider it necessary to deal with all these cases in this judgment, because for the purpose of decision in this case either they are not relevant or are of no avail in favour of the respondent - Mr. Akhani.
Gujarat High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 1 - R M Doshit - Full Document

S.V. Kanakaraj And Ors. vs Vijaya Bank, Mangalore And Ors. on 27 February, 1987

In the said Manjamma's case, it was held on the joint submission made by both the Advocates that the language of the Court was Kannada at the time when the sale proclamation was issued. Now, the learned counsel Sri Visweswara has produced before me a notification that on or about the time of the~' issuance of the sale proclamation both English and Kannada were the Court languages.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Rana Enterprises, Bangalore And Others vs State Bank Of Mysore, Peenya Industrial ... on 11 January, 2001

Insofar as Manjamma's case, supra, is concerned all that I would say is that the non-publication must have caused substantial injury in terms of Rule 90. Material facts as I have mentioned earlier would reveal in this case that on earlier occasion the sale was postponed for want of bidders. Second time after following the procedure, a bid of Rs. 14,55,000/- is accepted. On the facts of this case it cannot be said that on account of non-publication injustice is caused to the judgment-debtor on the facts of this case. In fact even in the case relied on by the judgment-debtor it is seen that evidence was recorded to prove the injury caused to judgment-debtor.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - R Gururajan - Full Document

Achutha Prabhu vs Vijaya Bank, Mani Branch And Anr. on 21 February, 2005

21. The learned Counsel for the judgment-debtor has also relied on decisions of this Court in the case of M/s. Annapurna Industries, Rice and Poha Mills, Hebbandi, Bhadravathi and Anr. v. Syndicate Bank, Bhadravathi Branch and Ors., in the case of M/s. Hotel Nataraj and Ors. v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation and Ors. and in the case of Smt. Manjamma v. S.N. Suryanarayana Rao, in support of his argument that the irregularities pointed out by him are material irregularities, which vitiate the sale held in favour of the auction purchaser.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S B Majage - Full Document

Shoukatali Bankapure vs The United Western Bank Ltd on 16 November, 2023

i) Manjamma Vs. Suryanarayana Rao;1 ii) Ambati Narasayya Vs. M. Subba Rao and another2; iii) M/s. Annapurna Industries Vs. Syndicate Bank3; iv) Desh Bandhu Gupta Vs. N.L. Anand & Rajinder Singh4; v) Seethammal Vs. Senthil Finance and another5; vi) Kharaiti Lal Vs. Raminder Kaur and others6; 1 ILR 1986 Kar 912 2 AIR 1990 SC 119 3 ILR 1993 KAR 1081 4 (1994) 1 SCC 131 5 AIR 1996 SC 1551 17 vii) The Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha Nagenahalli V. N. Yariswamy & Others7; viii) Balakrishnan Vs. Malaiyandi Konar8. 13. Learned Counsel for respondent No.5/auction
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Revanna S/O Chikkiregowda vs Smt Sannamalligamma on 26 July, 2012

3. The Lower Appellate Court before whom respondent preferred M.A.No.47/2010 having secured the records, and examined the order of the Executing Court, observed that the cause notices issued to the judgment debtors, was served only on the 2nd judgment debtor, none other than the son of the 1st Judgment Debtor-respondent herein, based upon which, the Executing Court held sufficiency of service on 1st judgment debtor. The sale notices issued to the 4 judgment debtors, however, was served only on the 2nd judgment debtor. The Lower Appellate Court noticed the assertion of the appellant therein (respondent herein) that she was thrown out of her matrimonial home at Maragowdanahalli by the 2nd judgment debtor and his wife some 7 years ago, and was not residing at that address, but at Karthal of Chunchanakatte Hobli, K.R.Nagar Taluk, in the house of her 2nd daughter. In the absence of an enquiry over whether the judgment debtor No.1 was or not residing at the address shown in the cause title or was residing at another address, the Lower Appellate Court observed that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and declined to accept the endorsement of the process server that the 1st Judgment Debtor was residing along with 2nd Judgment Debtor at the very address. The Lower Appellate Court further observed that in the light of Order 21 Rule 66(1) of CPC, the sale proclamation when not issued in Kannada the language of the court, but issued in English language, was perversity of proceedure, following the dictum of this Court in Manjamma Vs. Suryanarayana Rao1 . One other observation is non-compliance 1 ILR 1986 KAR 912 5 with the 2nd proviso to Order 21 rule 66(2) of CPC in not furnishing the estimated value of the property subject matter of sale, given by the decree holder. Yet another defect in the sale proclamation was violation of Order 21 Rule 64 of CPC in not assessing as to whether all items of the property mentioned in the schedule to the execution petition were necessary to be brought for auction sale, to discharge the decreetal amount.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R M Reddy - Full Document

Sri T Krishnappa vs Sri T G Ramachandra Guptha on 2 January, 2014

5. The Executing Court rejected the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in M.A.No.21/2005 before the Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.) Madhugiri, which also came to be dismissed on the ground that though this Hon. Court in Manjamma vs. Suryanarayana Rao reported in ILR 1986 KAR 912 has ruled that sale proclamation shall be in court language, rejected the contention of the petitioner on the ground that issuance of sale proclamation in English has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Accordingly, appeal came to be dismissed. Challenging the concurrent findings, the present petition is filed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - K L Manjunath - Full Document
1