Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing Thomson Press India Ltd vs Nanak Builders & Investors Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 27 February, 2020

Saratha vs Madhammal (Died) on 1 August, 2024

In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgements of the Hon'ble 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3352 of 2022 Supreme Court in (i) Thomson Press (India ) Limited vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 397 (ii) A.Nawab John and other vs.V.N.Subramaniyam reported in (2012) 7 SCC 738 (iii) V.L.Dhandapani and others vs. Revathy Ramachandran and others reported in 2014 ( 4) CTC 814.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Balakrishnan vs Shanmugadurai

31. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/subsequent purchaser also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2013 (5) SCC 397 (Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd.), wherein it has been held that the "Doctrine of Lis-Pendens" is based on the ground that it is necessary for administration of justice that the decision of a Court in a suit should be binding not only on the litigating parties, but also on those who derive the "title pendente-lite". Further, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act does not annul the conveyance or transfer, but only render it subservient to the rights of the parties to a litigation. It is also held by the Apex Court in that decision that Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act makes it clear that a suit for specific performance cannot be enforced against a person, who is a transferee from the vendor for a valuable consideration and without notice of the original contract, which is sought to be enforced in the suit. The party committing breach of injunction may incur the liability to be punished for such breach, but the sale by itself, may remain valid as between parties to the transaction, subject only to any directions to be issued in the suit against the vendor. Thus, the Apex Court in that decision observed that the Page No.26/41 http://www.judis.nic.in O.S.A.Nos.418, 420 and 421 of 2018 "transferee pendente-lite" is entitled to be impleaded in the suit and be heard in the matter on the merits of the case.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document

Oil And Natural Gas Commission vs Sharan Builders And 6 Ors. And Nikita ... on 28 February, 2020

16. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff would urge that it is now fairly well settled that the impleadment of the transferee during the pendency of the suit for specifc performance is to be ordinarily allowed, to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings. A strong reliance was placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Press (India) Limited vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited & others4, to bolster up the aforesaid submission. In the said case, after adverting to the previous pronouncements, it was inter alia observed that in a suit for specifc performance a person who is 3 (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 765.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - N J Jamadar - Full Document

Heerabhai Govabhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 29 October, 2021

10. The Doctrine of lis pendens is a doctrine based on the ground that it is necessary for the administration of justice that the decision of a Court in a suit should be pending not only on the litigating parties but on those who derive title pendelite. The provision of Section 52 does not indeed to annul the conveyance or the transfer otherwise, but, to render it subservient to the rights of the parties to a litigation. . This observation has been made in the case of Thomas Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd and Ors, reported in AIR 2013 SC 2389.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - G Gopi - Full Document

Shivshankara vs H.P.Vedavyasa Char on 29 March, 2023

In the decision in Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited1, this Court held the provision of Section 52 pf the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, did not indeed annul the conveyance or the transfer otherwise, but to render it subservient to the rights of the parties to a litigation. 1 (2013) 5 SCC 397 Page 23 of 48 There can be no doubt with respect to the position that the prohibition by application of the principles of the said doctrine would take its effect with the institution of the suit. Be that as it may, we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court was perfectly justified in the circumstances, to come to the conclusion, while considering the application for amendment of the written statement filed at the appellate stage, that granting the same would have, in effect, necessitated framing of fresh issues and constrained the parties to agitate their rights as if in a de novo trial. We referred to the aforesaid aspects solely to drive home the point that since the subject suit is based only on possessory title viz., on the basis of prior possession the finding and consequential rejection of the prayer for amendment of written statement to bring in the plea of purchase of the property pending the suit by the deceased second appellant cannot be said to be ground resulting in grave injustice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 7 - C T Ravikumar - Full Document

Sona Majumdar vs Kishorilal Agarwal & Anr on 31 March, 2023

In Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited reported in 2013(5) SCC 397, it was held the provision of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, did not indeed annul the conveyance or the transfer otherwise, but to render it subservient to the rights of the parties to a litigation. There can be no doubt with respect to the position that the prohibition by application of the 57 principles of the said doctrine would take its effect with the institution of the suit. [See.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S Sen - Full Document
1   2 3 Next