Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.87 seconds)
R. Arumugasamy vs Narvir Singh And Another (2014) 1 Scc 105 on 18 April, 2017 cites

State Bank Of Mysore vs M/S. S.M. Essence Distilleries Pvt. ... on 21 April, 1993

27.In this connection, it is not out of place for this Court to make a pertinent mention that an Equitable Mortgage of a property which lies outside the territories of Notified Towns, can be validly created by delivering the documents of title to a 'Creditor' or his 'Agent' in a Notified Town, vide State Bank of Mysore V. S.M. Essence Distilleries Private Limited, AIR 1993 Karnataka 359.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Others vs Narvir Singh And Others on 10 December, 2012

(i)In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others V. Narvir Singh and another, (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 105, it is observed and held that 'Ordinarily Mortgage by deposit of title deeds is not registerable if title deeds of the pledged interest are deposited in notified town in view of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act that provides exception in respect of MDTD as far as registration thereof is concerned'.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 12 - R K Jain - Full Document

A.V. Sreenivasalu Naidu vs V.K. Nataraja Goundan And Anr. on 12 November, 1954

14.2. But the question is whether a mortgage by deposit of title deeds is required to be done by an instrument at all. In our opinion, it may be effected in a specified town by the debtor delivering to his creditor documents of title to immovable property with the intent to create a security thereon. No instrument is required to be drawn for this purpose. However, the parties may choose to have a memorandum prepared only showing deposit of the title deeds. In such a case also registration is not required. But in a case in which the memorandum recorded in writing creates rights, liabilities or extinguishes those, the same requires registration. 3.25. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner refers to the decision of this Court in A.V.Sreenivasalu Naidu V. V.K.Nataraja Goundan and another, AIR 1955 Madras 461 wherein it is observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Nandipati Rami Reddi And Ors. vs Nandipati Padma Reddy And Ors. on 2 February, 1977

For example, if the secured creditor, on the basis of the relevant materials, comes to a conclusion that the highest bid offered, even though higher than the reserve price, does not reflect the true market value and there has been any collusion among the bidders, the secured creditor in its discretion may refuse to confirm such highest bid notwithstanding the fact that the highest bid is more than the upset price. This is because the secured creditor is not only interested to realise its debt, but also expected to act as a trustee on behalf of the borrower so that the highest possible amount can be generated and surplus if any can be refunded to the borrower. The first proviso in no uncertain terms makes it clear that no sale can be confirmed by the authorised officer, if the amount offered is less than the reserve price specified under the Rule 8(5). However, the subsequent proviso gives discretion to the authorised officer to confirm such sale even if the bid is less than the reserve price, provided the borrower and the secured creditor agree that the sale may be effected at such price which is not above the reserve price. This is obviously so because the property belongs to the borrower and as security for the secured creditor and both of them would be obviously interested to see that the property is sold at a price higher than the reserve price. However, if both of them agree that the property can be sold, even it has not fetched a price more than the reserve price, the authorised officer in its discretion may confirm such auction. 3.27. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also cites the decision Nandipati Rami Reddi and others V. Nandipati Padma Reddy and others, AIR 1978 Andhra Pradesh 30, at special page 31, wherein it is observed as under:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 3 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Thungabhadra Industries Ltd vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 October, 1963

5.8. The Learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd Respondent/Auction Purchaser cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thungabhadra Industries Limited V. Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372 at special page 1373, wherein it is observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 784 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Delhi Administration vs Gurdip Singh Uban And Ors. Etc on 18 August, 2000

There is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by error apparent. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. 5.9. The Learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd Respondent relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration V. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 296 wherein it is held that 'there is a real definition between a merely erroneous decision and a decision which can be characterised as vitiated by error apparent.' 5.10.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 388 - M J Rao - Full Document

M. Jagadeesan vs K.Selvam on 7 January, 2010

5.11. The Learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd Respondent draws the attention of this Court to the decision M.Jagadeesan V. K.Selvam, (2010) 2 MLJ 1177, wherein it is held that 'The power of Review was restricted under Civil Procedure Code and by means of review substantial relief's could not be asked and moreover, a Court of Law cannot rehear parties on point of law afresh and also there could be no reappraisal and re-appreciation of evidence based on overall assessment and facts of matters in issue.' 5.12.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 5 - M Venugopal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next