Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing Ramrao Jankiram Kadam vs State Of Bombay on 26 September, 1962

Deputy Commissioner Of Sales Tax And ... vs Narendrakumar Devendrakumar Purohit ... on 12 July, 2004

In so far as, a purchase by the Government, at a revenue sale, for a predetermined normal price of Rs. 1 of the property of defaulter, as declared in , Ramarao Jankiram Kadam v. State of Bombay and Ors., such a sale is void and therefore, ineffective. In view of the settled provisions, nothing further was argued and pressed, therefore, it was accordingly decreed to deliver vacation possession of the said suit premises as such sale through such auction, itself was illegal and bad in law.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Asst. Commissioner Of Proh. 2 Ors., vs K. Anjaiah 3 Ors., on 26 May, 2022

59. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramrao Jankiram Kadam Vs. State of Bombay5 categorically held that in an auction conducted by the Government authorities purchase of the property belongs to defaulter by Government at a nominal bid is not a sale by public auction within Section 167 of Bombay Land Revenue Code. The sale is void. No title passes to the Government.
Telangana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

K.Anjaiah, Mominpet Mandal, ... vs The Asst.Commissioner Of Proh ... on 26 May, 2022

59. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramrao Jankiram Kadam Vs. State of Bombay5 categorically held that in an auction conducted by the Government authorities purchase of the property belongs to defaulter by Government at a nominal bid is not a sale by public auction within Section 167 of Bombay Land Revenue Code. The sale is void. No title passes to the Government.
Telangana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

A'Bad Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. Etc. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 13 April, 1977

In Ramrao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 827 (834) even the Supreme Court in the very same context of S. 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, applied the test whether the statute in question had provided an -appeal against the act of the revenue authority in question. Where, therefore, the auction sale was not merely irregular but only a purported sale for the nominal bid offered by the Mahalkari authorized by the Collector, there being no specific provision of appeal and there being no decision which was capable of appeal within the meaning of S. 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, against such authorization of the Mahalkari by the Collector to offer such a bid, the bar under S. 11 was not attracted for entertaining the suit against such a purported sale.
Gujarat High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 20 - D A Desai - Full Document

Sameen Banu Makrani And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 11 March, 1981

In Ramrao Jankiram v. State of Bombay and Ors. a question arose whether the suit to declare the purchase made by the Government of the defaulter's property at a nominal bid of Re. 1/- could be said to be a sale by public auction within the terms of Section 167 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code which passes no title to the Government and, therefore, void being barred under Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act. The Supreme Court in that connection ruled as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ram Deo Singh vs Executive Engineer, P.W.D. And Ors. on 19 May, 1977

"8. The tolls of any public ferry may, from time to time, be let by public auction for a term not exceeding five years with the approval of the Commissioner, or by public auction, or otherwise than by public auction for any term with the previous sanction of the State Government .....'' Now, there is undoubtedly a difference between a sale by auction and invitation to tender, as has been adopted in the present case. An auction has been described as proceedings at which people are invited to compete for the purchase of property by successive offers of advancing sums and a sale by auction is a means of ascertaining what the thing is worth viz. its fair market price (see Ramrap Jankiram v. State of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 827 at p. 833), while an invitation to tender is a mere attempt to ascertain whether an offer can be obtained within such margin as the building owner, or employer is willing to adopt, or in other words is an offer to negotiate, an offer to receive offers, an offer to chaffer (See Purushottam Ramanata v. Makan Kalyan Tandel, AIR 1974 SC 651 at p. 656), These cases clearly establish that there is a difference between an auction and invitation for tender. Thus in case the ferry in question could not be let out by tender, but had to be sold by public auction, the procedure adopted for selling the ferry would be invalid, Under the first part of Section 8 of the Act, tolls of public ferry may be let out for a period not exceeding five years by public auction with the approval of the Commissioner, while under the later part for any term by public auction or otherwise with the previous sanction of the State Government, Counsel for the petitioner contended that the latter part of Section 8 applies only to those cases where the ferry is let out for a term exceeding five years and not for any term of less than five years. He supports this contention by authority.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vyankatesh Dhonddey Deshpande vs Sou, Kusm Dattatraya Kulkarni And Ors. on 11 October, 1974

44. It is not possible to accept this argument, because it has no relevance to the legality of the auction sale. Whether we hold that the auction sale was held ultra vires Section 7 of the Tagai Loans Act or contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the mode of enforcing the son's liability under the pious obligation, the auction sale must be held to be illegal as found by the learned Civil Judge in this case. It is true that the order for recovery of the Tagai loan was made in this case as per Ex. 95-D-1 0n April 30, 1954, but that was an order to recover the Tagai loan for non-compliance with the conditions of the Tagai loan bond passed against the borrower, Dattatray. No order was passed against the plaintiffs or any of them. The basis on which the auction sale was held on April 6, 1957, namely, that the Government could sell the lands for the benefit of which the loan was given at a nominal bid of Re. 1/- being illegal, the auction sale also must be considered to be without any legal authority or validity. Further, on the date of the auction sale, Dattatray had no right, title or interest whatsoever in the suit land and hence the Revenue Authorities had no power to sell the suit land for recovering the loan from Dattatray. In view of matter, therefore, the auction sale in the present case must be held to be invalid.
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next