Abul Hossain vs Netai Nandi @ Netish Nandi & Ors on 23 May, 2025
79. The decision in Vidur Impex (supra) was also considered in
paragraph 25 of Thomson Press (supra) in which paragraph 41 of
Vidur Impex (supra) was considered.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 508 (5.31 seconds)Documents citing
Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs Nanak Builders & Investrs.P.Ltd & Ors on 21 February, 2013
Sonu Bhati & Anr. vs Archana Jain & Ors. on 13 January, 2025
20. The observations made by the Supreme Court in Thomson Press
(India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors (P) Ltd.2 would be of little
assistance to the appellants in the present case. First of all, the said
decision was rendered in the context of the pendente lite transfers. The
principal question that fell for consideration of the Supreme Court was
validity of transfers during the pendency of litigation and not transfers
that were executed in teeth of the orders passed by the court.
Richhpal Etc vs Ranjit Etc on 10 April, 2024
48. The next question is that as to how far the outcome of the
litigation is binding on the transferees pendente lite. This aspect has also been
discussed in Thomson Press (India) Limited vs. Nank Builders case (supra),
wherein explaining the effect of the transfer pendente lite under Section 52 of
the Transfer of Property Act, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
Rati Ram Etc vs Ranjit Singh Etc on 10 April, 2024
48. The next question is that as to how far the outcome of the
litigation is binding on the transferees pendente lite. This aspect has also been
discussed in Thomson Press (India) Limited vs. Nank Builders case (supra),
wherein explaining the effect of the transfer pendente lite under Section 52 of
the Transfer of Property Act, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
C.Chinnappa vs Jayamma on 2 February, 2024
Therefore, I prefer the latest
view of the Supreme Court in V.N.Krishna murthy and another
V.Ravikumar and others (2020) 9 SCC 501 and the view in Thomson
Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders and investors private limited
and others reported in (2013)5 SCC 397 and hold that a purchaser lis
pendens is entitled to maintain an appeal and urge the correctness of the
decree that had been passed by the trial Court against his vendors.
K.Sugumar vs P.K.Sundaram on 29 April, 2015
41.In (2013) 5 SCC 397 Thomson Press (India) Ltd., V. Nanak Builders and investors private limited and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again held that it is well settled that 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 binding not only on the litigating parties but on those who derive title pendente lite. The provision of this section does not indeed annul the conveyance or the transfer otherwise, but to render it subservient to the rights of the parties to a litigation.
Janardan Singh & Ors vs Sidheshwar Singh & Ors on 30 April, 2018
The Supreme
Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2012 dt.30-04-2018
5/5
Court in paragraph 55 of the said judgment (Thomson Press (India)
Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited & Ors.) has
observed that any such heirs, legatee or transferee could not be turned
away when he applies for being added as a party to the suit. While
summing up, the Supreme Court held, in the facts and circumstances
of that case, that as the transferee had purchased the entire estate, he
was entitled to be added as party (defendant) to the suit. However, as
a result of his addition, Court held in that case, the appellant should
raise and pursue only such defences as are available and taken by the
original defendants and not other.
Yasodha vs V.G.P.Housing (Private Limited) on 17 December, 2013
But in the latest judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in 2013 (5) SCC 397-Thomson Press(Inia) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and Others, In view of the subsequent pronouncement of the Honourable Apex Court, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents are not applicable.
Jayapal vs T.Sakunthala on 8 October, 2018
9. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Thomas Press (India) Limited vs. Nanak Builders and
Investors Private Limited and others was followed by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of V.L.Dhandapani and others vs.
Revathy Ramachandran and others. Para 11 reads as under:
G.Rajakumari vs Ganesan on 11 January, 2021
9. He also relied upon yet another judgment reported in (2013) 5
SCC 397 in the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd, Vs. Nanak Builders
and investors Pvt. Ltd., and ors., in which our Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India held as follows :-