Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.16 seconds)
Narayana Sahu And Anr. vs Kraleti Pentamma Alias ... on 22 April, 1929 cites

Raj Chandra Das vs Kali Kanta Das And Ors. on 12 June, 1922

In order to mitigate the hardship that is sure to arise from a strict adherence to the opposite view, some decisions have gone to the length of laying down that it is enough if the auction-purchaser's name is mentioned somewhere in the body of the judgment-debtor's application though not in the cause-title as one of the parties (see Raj Chandra Das v. Kali Kanta Das A.I.R. 1923 Cal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ganesh Bab Naik vs Vithal Vaman Mahalya on 1 November, 1912

In Ganesh Bab Naik v. Vithal Vaman (1912) I.L.R. 37 B. 387 the auction-purchaser was not made a party to the original application or to the appeal though notice was issued to him by the first Court and he was added as party to the appeal under Order 41, Rule 20. On this point the Bombay High Court observe (p. 390) that according to Order 21, Rule 92, Where in the case of an application under Rule 89 the deposit required by that rule is made within 30 days from the date of the sale, the Court shall make an order setting aside the sale provided that no such order shall he made unless notice of the application has been given to all persons affected thereby. That cannot mean that notice must be given within 30 days of the date of sale.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Ajiuddin Ahamed vs L. Khoda Bux Khondkar And Ors. on 27 January, 1919

2. In this Court the only point pressed is that it is necessary in applications under Order 21, Rule 92, that the party to be prejudicially affected by the order, e.g., the auction-purchaser, should be impleaded and notice sent to him and that unless the applicant has impleaded the auction-purchaser within the time allowed the application is time-barred and unsustainable. Our difficulty in deciding the question on the words of the relevant rules themselves which should be the ultimate basis of decision on such a question, is the wealth of conflicting judicial opinion on it. The petitioner's advocate referred to the following cases in his favour:--Ajiuddin Ahamed v. Khoda Bux Khondkar (1919) 50 I.C. 5 Sumitra Kucr v. Damri Lall (1921) 62 I.C. 61, Karamat Khan v. Mir Ali Ahmed (1891) A.W.N. 124 and Khoda Bux v. Sadu Pramanick (1910) 14 Cal. L.J. 620 at 625.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Musammat Sumitra Kuer vs Damri Lall And Ors. on 18 March, 1921

2. In this Court the only point pressed is that it is necessary in applications under Order 21, Rule 92, that the party to be prejudicially affected by the order, e.g., the auction-purchaser, should be impleaded and notice sent to him and that unless the applicant has impleaded the auction-purchaser within the time allowed the application is time-barred and unsustainable. Our difficulty in deciding the question on the words of the relevant rules themselves which should be the ultimate basis of decision on such a question, is the wealth of conflicting judicial opinion on it. The petitioner's advocate referred to the following cases in his favour:--Ajiuddin Ahamed v. Khoda Bux Khondkar (1919) 50 I.C. 5 Sumitra Kucr v. Damri Lall (1921) 62 I.C. 61, Karamat Khan v. Mir Ali Ahmed (1891) A.W.N. 124 and Khoda Bux v. Sadu Pramanick (1910) 14 Cal. L.J. 620 at 625.
Patna High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1