Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.36 seconds)Manilal Mohanlal Shah And Others vs Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmad And ... on 14 April, 1954
It has to be noticed that the Supreme Court decision did not relate to a case in which there was default in the matter of production of the amount required for the purchase of the general stamp paper for the sale certificate. It is not clear whether it was a case in which there was any requirement on the part of the auction-purchaser to produce the amount for the stamp paper. As already noticed, in the instant case the sale took place at a time when under Order 21, Rule 85, as it stood then, there was no requirement at all to produce any amount for the general stamp paper for the sale certificate. That being the position, the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above does not appear to have any direct application to the facts of this case.
Anant Gopal Sheorey vs The State Of Bombay on 22 May, 1958
The learned counsel for the appellants, I am afraid, seeks to apply the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to above without bearing in mind the context and circumstance in which it could be applied. In the present case, when the sale took place, there was no obligation on the part of the respondent to pay the amount required for the general stamp paper for the sale certificate. He had the right to get the sale confirmed by the court without being required to do any thing further in the matter. Even the passage from the Supreme Court decision quoted above makes it clear that the respondent has the right to make prosecution or defence in the manner prescribed for the time being by or for the court in which the case was pending. If that be so, he had the right to get the sale confirmed without requiring him to do anything further in the matter inasmuch as the amended procedure would have application only to the further stages of the prosecution or defence in the pending proceeding. The argument of the appellants, if accepted, would at times, lead to absurd consequences as it can presently be seen from the facts of this case. As has already been found, the provision, as it now stands, requires that the amount for the general stamp paper for the sale certificate has to be produced in court within 15 days from the date of the sale; and that means, it should have been produced on or before the 22nd December 1966 (when there was no need for such production in accordance with Rule 85 of Order 21, C.P.C., as it stood then), and if that was insisted upon as a condition precedent to the confirmation of sale, the court would be asking the auction-purchaser not only to do something which he was not expected to do, but also to do something not capable of performance, as the petition filed by the appellant under Order 21, Rule 90 was disposed of on 30-6-1966, and the confirmation could have been granted only thereafter, whereas the 15 days' time from the date of sale expired by 22-12-1965. It is then argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that in that case at least the respondent could have been called upon to produce it within a reasonable time. I do not think there is any justification for taking such a view.
N. T. Veluswami Thevar vs G. Raja Nainar And Others on 24 November, 1958
6. Sri Kurien also argued that in the peculiar circumstance that obtained in this case a reasonable construction may be adopted, as otherwise it would result in great hardship and injustice by the denial of the rights which had already accrued in favour of the respondent. A passage in N. Thevar v. G Raja Nainar, (1959) 1 SCA 424 at p. 432 = (AIR 1959 SC 422) which reads as follows has been relied on by the learned counsel to press this contention :
1