Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing P.L. Chakrapani Naidu And T.K. ... vs T. Gopal Mudaliar And Ors. on 27 March, 1972

Indira Devaraj Bhat vs S.Srinivas on 7 June, 2007

26. Chakrapani Naidu vs. Gopal Mudaliar (1972 (2) MLJ 390) was strongly relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, to show that neither insufficiency of the principal of the bidders, nor insufficiency of price could vitiate the sale. That case was some what the similar to the present case. Suits were filed to prevent the auction, previous auctions were obstructed and the Division Bench had observed that the mortgagee was not actually of any fraudulent conduct and that if bidder offers were not forthcoming, it was because of the obstructive tactics, pursued by the mortgagors and in that conduct, the Division Bench refer to the English Decision to show when the mortgagee is not a trustee of the board of the sale for the mortgagor, but in the same decision, the Division Bench held that the auctioneers records, day books and ledgers were all filed and the Division Bench carefully perused the same and arrived at the conclusion that there was an auction and there was evidence that at the time of auction, there were 40 or 50 persons present and that nothing was done in secrecy. No such evidence is available in the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - P Sridevan - Full Document

G.Kalki Rajan vs V.Sreenivasan (Deceased) on 29 July, 2019

'Ignore the pendency of suits, give no notice of the intended auction to the mortgagor, fix no upset price for auction in the auction-notice on due http://www.judis.nic.in 21 valuation, let the director of the first defendant fix it, and then let his man bid the auction and his men purchase the property'. Is anything more required to demonstrate fraud involved better? Reliance was placed on P.L. Chakrapan Naidu Vs T. Gopal Mudaliar [(1972(2) MLJ 390 : AIR 1973 Mad 8 : (1972) 85 LW 733 (DB), Dr. T. Vijayebndradas & another Vs M. Subramanian & Others [2006(3)CTC 702] The Egmore Benefit Society Vs K.Aburupammal & Others [AIR 1943 Mad 301 : 1943(1)MLJ 92 (DB)] K. Mohana Krishnan Vs Seetha Natarajan [1992(2)LW 592], Clara Mookerjea alias Smt. Mathuri Devi & another Vs Surendra Manilal Mehta & Others [AIR 1963 Mad 208] P.R.Govindaswami Naicker Vs Pukhraj Sowcvar & another [AIR 1940 Madras 903] (This authority even the 3rd defendant/appellant too had relied on to emphasis an opposite view), Mulraj Virji Vs Nainmal Pratapchand [AIR 1942 Bombay 46], Vallabhdas Mulji Vs Pranshankar Narbheshankar & Others [AIR 1929 Bombay 24]. Discussion:
Madras High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 1 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

A.Arunagiri vs The Egmore Benefit Society Ltd on 27 June, 2013

In P.L.Chakrapani Naidu v. T.Gopal Mudaliar (1972 (2) MLJ 390), a Division Bench of this Court held that the mere use of the words fraud and collusion in the plaint meant nothing and that there must be positive proof of the same and that the burden of proving fraud and collusion was on the mortgagors. In fact, the Division Bench noted in that case that sufficient number of bidders were not forthcoming because of the obstructive tactics adopted by the mortgagors.
Madras High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 2 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document
1