Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)By Advs.Sri.Harisankar vs By Advs.Sri.Harisankar V. Menon on 16 June, 2014
K.V. Antony vs Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. on 20 July, 1994
He also
relied upon another judgment of this Court in K.V. Antony v.
Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. [1994 (2) KLJ 339], wherein the
importance of Order XXI Rule 90(3) of CPC has been reiterated.
Ambati Narasayya vs M. Subba Rao & Anr on 6 October, 1989
9. The learned counsel for the respondents-judgment
debtors relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Narasayya v.
Subba Rao [AIR 1990 SC 119 : 1990 (1) KLJ 213] to contend
that the execution court ought to have noticed that for the
realisation of a small amount compared to the value of the
property, the entire property through the description in the
execution petition ought not have been permitted to be sold in
auction.
Nani Gopal Paul vs T. Prasad Singh & Ors on 6 March, 1995
Notably, in the decision
in Nani Gopal Paul v. T.Prasad Singh and others [AIR
1995 SC 1971] the Apex Court held that normally an
application to set aside the sale has to be filed within the
FAO No.26 of 2022 12
period of limitation and the said procedure need not be
insisted upon when obvious and manifest illegality was
committed in conducting court sale."
P.K.Kuruvilla (Thachara) vs State Bank Of Travancore on 20 October, 2009
"20. Similarly, as provided under Order XXI Rule 90(3) of
the CPC, no application to set aside the sale under this Rule
shall be entertained upon any ground on which the
applicant could have taken on or before the date on which
the proclamation of sale was drawn up. In P.K.Kuruvila v.
Corporation Bank [2008 (1) KHC 258 : 2008 (1) KLT
604] this Court held that where the sale was held in
violation of mandatory requirements of the rule or is
vitiated by material irregularity, Order XXI Rule 90(3) of
the CPC would not be applicable.
1