Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Nani Gopal Paul vs T. Prasad Singh & Ors on 6 March, 1995

K.M.Balasubramaniam vs C.Loganathan on 27 March, 2018

17.Further, the decision in Nani Gopal Paul v. T.Prasad Singh and Others, cited supra, in paragraph No.4, it is seen that the Court would not remain a mute or helpless spectator to obvious and manifest, when the illegality was committed in conducting Court sales. As stated in the aforesaid paragraph, the petitioner has not satisfied that there is irregular and illegal in the sale proceedings.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 115 - D Krishnakumar - Full Document

Date Of Reserving The Judgment vs C.Loganathan on 10 February, 2017

The Supreme Court has taken suo motu judicial notice of the illegality in the sale and set aside the sale even after the expiry of period of limitation prescribed therefor. Viewed in the light of the above decision, the Executing Court cannot be said to have exceeded its limits in setting aside the sale recalling the Sale Certificate in the proceedings under Order XXI, Rule 85, CPC. When such irregularity/fraud is brought to the notice of the Court, the Court cannot remain a mute spectator solely because the sale was already confirmed. There is no quarrel over the said proposition. But in the instant case, the revision petitioner/judgment debtor has no locus standi to file the application. Further, on perusal of the records would show that sale proclamation has been made in accordance with law. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the above citation will not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - R Mala - Full Document

Date Of Reserving The Judgment vs C.Loganathan on 10 February, 2017

The Supreme Court has taken suo motu judicial notice of the illegality in the sale and set aside the sale even after the expiry of period of limitation prescribed therefor. Viewed in the light of the above decision, the Executing Court cannot be said to have exceeded its limits in setting aside the sale recalling the Sale Certificate in the proceedings under Order XXI, Rule 85, CPC. When such irregularity/fraud is brought to the notice of the Court, the Court cannot remain a mute spectator solely because the sale was already confirmed. There is no quarrel over the said proposition. But in the instant case, the revision petitioner/judgment debtor has no locus standi to file the application. Further, on perusal of the records would show that sale proclamation has been made in accordance with law. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the above citation will not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - R Mala - Full Document

Mohan Lal Bagla vs Board Of Revenue And Ors. on 11 August, 2004

The Apex Court in the case of Nani Gopal Paul (supra) has clearly ruled that on finding that the sale proceeding was void and nullity, the Court is not to sit as silent spectator. If an action is void, then unless the aggrieved party by his own conduct permits the effect of. that action to become operative, that cannot be legalized only by passage of time. In the present case, petitioners having promptly reacted against the impugned action, merely on the ground that long time has passed relief, if any, if he is entitled cannot be negatived. Accordingly, this Court being convinced with injury and injustice which has occasioned with the petitioners has to take a view that the auction proceedings Including the grant of sale certificate and the impugned orders are to be quashed and possession over the properties is to be restored to petitioners. It may be slightly harsh for the respondents who have taken the property in the auction proceedings but we do not know that who were the parties in the entire mischief. As the respondent being the highest bidder in the auction proceeding has deposited the bid amount, he will be entitled to get back money so deposited with interest of 6% per annum. So far as bid amount is concerned, as it is said that the tax liability stood wiped of, it will be for the department and for the petitioners of both writ petitions to pay their respective part of money to the auction purchaser with an interest of 6% per annum, within a period of six weeks on filing application in this respect by the auction purchaser before the Commissioner of the Division for the aforesaid purpose.
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 6 - S K Singh - Full Document

Nandkishor Daulatrao Shelke vs Baban Vitthal Mhaske And Anr. on 13 September, 2004

10. As against this, Advocate Shri Khapre, relying upon the judgment reported in the case of Nani Gopal Paul v. T. Prasad Singh, points out that the Court can that suo motu notice of illegality in this matter and the sale ought to have been quashed and set aside and the possession cannot be delivered. He contends that confirmation of sale was itself illegal. Para 4 of this ruling reads as under which supports his contention:
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

The Tufanialonga Tea Co. Ltd., Calcutta ... vs State Of Tripura And Ors. on 9 April, 1999

In Nani Gopal Paul's case (AIR 1995 SC 1971) (supra) cited by Mr. Chakravorty, the Supreme Court held that the Court would not remain a mute and helpless spectator to obvious and manifest illegalities committed in conducting Court sales and set aside a Court sale and confirmation of a Court sale in which manifest illegalities were noticed by the Court. We are of the view that since gross illegalities have been committed in selling valuable properties of the two petitioners at a nominal price of Re 1/- for each tea estate to the State Government in the present case, we should set aside the sales of the two tea estates and remand the matter to the Collector for initiating fresh steps for recovery of the aforesaid arrear land revenue in accordance with the provisions of the 1960 Actandthe 1961 Rules as discussed above.
Gauhati High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Garla Sudhakar vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 22 January, 1999

, Kotaiah v. Property Association of the Baptist Churches (Pvt.) Ltd, , Kodavalli Veeraiah v. the Gram Panchayal of Angirchulapadu, Lingasamitdram Mandal, rep, by the Executive Aulhority/Sarpanch, , Nani Gopal Paul v. T. Prasad Singh, , and Fosie Chung Chemova v. Mama Bendra Chander Roy, . From going through these judgments, I find that the Supreme Court has consistently held that a person should be given an opportunity before any orders adverse to him are passed against him. The principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court cannot be disputed. But these judgments would not arise for my consideration, since the petitioner has not challenged the alleged cancellation order said to have been passed against him without any notice and opportunity. At any rate the period of one year contemplated under proceedings dated 11-9-1997 is already over and no cause survives for the petitioner for maintaining this writ petition, as I have already stated above.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - B S Raikote - Full Document

M/S Acme Papers Ltd. vs M.P.Financial Corp. & Anr on 9 July, 2010

In Nani Gopal Paul's case (supra) the Apex Court further held that as against the auction price of Rs.60.00 Lac only M.A. No. 2398/2003 -6- Rs.5.00 Lac were deposited and balance amount was assured to be deposited only after delivery of possession. That was found to be illegal. In the present case, the auction was held on 13.8.1999 and 25% of the auction price was deposited by the second respondent and rest of the 75% was also deposited on 17.8.1999. Thus, in the present case whole of the amount was deposited and there was no illegality as such.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pradeep Kumar Gupta vs Hari Ram Gupta Decd Thru Lrs on 15 March, 2012

Vs. Superindendent, Central Excise and Ors.; AIR 1995 SC 1971 Nani Gopal Paul Vs. T. Prasad Singh are thus wholly inapplicable. There is no dispute that during the period when the executing proceedings are stayed the said period has to be excluded while computing period of limitation but at the cost of repetition it is noted the only period for which the stay was in operation was from 1972 to 24.5.1982 and for no period beyond thereto.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - I Kaur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next