Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)
Suresh vs Muthoot Finance Ltd on 23 September, 2013 cites

The Official Assignee vs Madholal Sindhu on 21 August, 1946

10. A reading of the Section shows that the right to redeem can be exercised right up to the time when the actual sale of the goods pledged takes place. It is axiomatic that the sale should be in conformity with the provisions of Section 176 of the Contract Act. Bomaby O.P.(C).No.3802 of 2013 9 High Court in Official Assignee v. Madholal Sindhu (AIR (34) 1947 Bombay 217) held that if the sale is not in conformity with Section 176 of the Contract Act, the equity of redemption in the pawnor will not be extinguished. In the light of these discussions, it is discernible that the suit is not one falling under Section 24 of the 1959 Act as the suit cannot be termed as one for recovery of movable property. However, Section 35 of the 1959 Act may be attracted in this case. The said Section deals with suits for accounts. It says that in a suit for accounts, fee shall be computed on the amount sued and as estimated in the plaint or on rupees one thousand which ever is higher. In Ext.P1 plaint, the petitioner valued relief-A at `1,000/-. If at all he has not paid court fee under Section 35 of the 1959 Act, it is only a curable irregularity.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 36 - Full Document
1