Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.05 seconds)
T. Vijendradas & Another vs M. Subramanian & Others on 9 October, 2007 cites

Chandra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 22 July, 2003

23. We would assume that the courts below proceeded on a wrong premise that Order XXI, Rule 92(4) is not attracted, but the question as regards fraud committed by the judgment-debtor has been gone into a great details. We are satisfied that the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Judge and affirmed by the First Appellate Court also by the High Court are equitable. It is in a situation of this nature, we are of the opinion that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India can pass an appropriate order with a view to do complete justice to the parties. [Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Another  (2003) 6 SCC 545  Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan & Ors. -2007 (7) SCALE 753 - para 14].
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 206 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Brij Mohan & Ors on 15 May, 2007

23. We would assume that the courts below proceeded on a wrong premise that Order XXI, Rule 92(4) is not attracted, but the question as regards fraud committed by the judgment-debtor has been gone into a great details. We are satisfied that the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Judge and affirmed by the First Appellate Court also by the High Court are equitable. It is in a situation of this nature, we are of the opinion that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India can pass an appropriate order with a view to do complete justice to the parties. [Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Another  (2003) 6 SCC 545  Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan & Ors. -2007 (7) SCALE 753 - para 14].
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 319 - Full Document

Lachhman Dass vs Jagat Ram & Ors on 20 February, 2007

24. In this case the appellants as also the aforementioned M/s Ramans purchased the property pendente lite. They would be deemed to have notice of the sale made by Venugopal in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a person is said to have notice of the fact when he actually knows that fact, where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument. [See Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram & Others  2007 (3) SCALE 349]. They have purchased the property with notice, apart from the fact that the transfer made in their favour was hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The decree obtained by the Municipality had been passed under Order XXXIV CPC. Respondents had a subsisting right of redemption. Order XXXIV, Rule 15 CPC provides that all the provisions contained therein shall, as far as may be, apply to a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds within the meaning of Section 58, and to a charge within the meaning of Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act. The charge created under Section 85 of the 1920 Act would be one covered by Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 115 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next