Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.31 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
Section 35 in The Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Dhirendra Nath Gorai And Subal ... vs Sudhir Chandra Ghosh And Others on 4 March, 1964
In Dhirendra Nath Gorai v. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh and Ors., , it was held that Section 35 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 is a provision relating to the contents of a sale proclamation, that its effect is to amend or supplement the provisions of Order 21; Rule 66 of the Code which, inter alia, directs the court to specify the sale proclamation of "the property to be sold", that an objection regarding non-compliance of Section 35 in specifying the property to be sold is a defect in
the sale proclamation, that in case the objector did not raise any objection regarding the sale defect, such an objection cannot be maintained in a petition under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code. The ratio therefore is that non-compliance of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 66 of the Code does not per se make a sale illegal, without jurisdiction and a nullity and in case an objection regarding such non-compliance is not made at a proper time i.e. before the sale, the same cannot be maintained.
Ramji Dayawahla & Sons Private Ltd. vs Invest Import on 13 September, 1968
In support of the contention that independent evidence should be produced to prove the contents of a document, reliance of the counsel is on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramjit Dayawala and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Invest Import, to the effect that mere proof of the hand writing of a document would not tentamount to proof of all the content* or facts stated in the said document, if the truth of the fact so stated is in issue.
Dada Narayan Thakre vs Jaichand Nagorao And Anr. on 28 October, 1957
In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon judgments in Naranjan Purushottam Bansod v. Ram Chandra Mudgalji Choudharkar and Ors., A.I.R. (35) 1948 Nagpur, 177, Dada Narayan Thakre v. Jaichand Nagorao and Anr., A.I.R. 1959, Bombay 278 and Balwant Rai Kumar v. Smt. Amrit Kaur, .
Madholal Sindhu vs Asian Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 17 September, 1955
Reliance of the learned counsel is also on two judgments of the Bombay High Court in Sir Mohd. Yusuf and Anr. v. D. and Anr., and Madholal Sindhu v. Asian Assurances Co. Ltd. and Ors. A.I.R. 1954, Bombay 305.
Section 47 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Mohammed Yusuf And Anr. vs D. And Anr. on 14 July, 1961
Reliance of the learned counsel is also on two judgments of the Bombay High Court in Sir Mohd. Yusuf and Anr. v. D. and Anr., and Madholal Sindhu v. Asian Assurances Co. Ltd. and Ors. A.I.R. 1954, Bombay 305.
Uma Dutt vs R.K. Sardana on 23 May, 1968
14. But a different view was taken by this court in Uma Dutt v. R.K. Sardana and Another, . It is laid down that a sale cannot be set aside unless irregularity and fraud is shown to have related in substantial injury to judgment debtors, that normally mere inadequacy of price is no ground to set aside the sale and that any objection as to the non-compliance of Order 21, Rule 66 of the Code, which could have been taken, before the sale, cannot be a good ground for setting aside the sale.