Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
Smt. Parsandi Devi & Ors vs Sh. Om Prakash on 12 January, 2016 cites

B. Arvind Kumar vs Government Of India & Ors on 28 May, 2007

7. Ld. Counsel for auction purchaser has argued that defendant is trying to stall the transfer of title and possession in favour of auction purchaser when sale has been confirmed by this court pursuant to the auction proceedings. He submitted that valuable right has accrued to the auction purchaser as he has deposited the sale consideration amount in the court and sale has also been confirmed by this court. He further submitted that once the auction sale is accepted by the court in favour of the auction purchaser, it becomes absolute and title vests in the auction purchaser. He further argued that defendant has not alleged any fraud or collusion in auction proceedings and defendant has no authority to assail the sale of the property in the absence of any allegation of fraud or collusion and therefore he cannot seek review of the judgment or the order confirming the sale. To fortify his arguments, the Ld. Counsel for CS No. 593/12 Parsandi Devi & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash Page No. 7 of 14 auctioneer purchaser has placed reliance on B. Arvind Kumar Vs. Government of India 2007 (5) SCC 745 and Sadashiv Prasad Singh Vs. Harendar Singh 2014 AIR (SC) 1078.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 50 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Sadashiv Prasad Singh vs Harendar Singh & Ors on 8 January, 2014

7. Ld. Counsel for auction purchaser has argued that defendant is trying to stall the transfer of title and possession in favour of auction purchaser when sale has been confirmed by this court pursuant to the auction proceedings. He submitted that valuable right has accrued to the auction purchaser as he has deposited the sale consideration amount in the court and sale has also been confirmed by this court. He further submitted that once the auction sale is accepted by the court in favour of the auction purchaser, it becomes absolute and title vests in the auction purchaser. He further argued that defendant has not alleged any fraud or collusion in auction proceedings and defendant has no authority to assail the sale of the property in the absence of any allegation of fraud or collusion and therefore he cannot seek review of the judgment or the order confirming the sale. To fortify his arguments, the Ld. Counsel for CS No. 593/12 Parsandi Devi & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash Page No. 7 of 14 auctioneer purchaser has placed reliance on B. Arvind Kumar Vs. Government of India 2007 (5) SCC 745 and Sadashiv Prasad Singh Vs. Harendar Singh 2014 AIR (SC) 1078.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 36 - J S Khehar - Full Document
1