Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.30 seconds)Mudragada Suryanarayanamurthi vs Southern Agencies, Rajahmundry And ... on 18 September, 1961
In Mudragada Suryanarayanamurti v. Southern Agencies, , the Division Bench of this Court had arrived at a conclusion that where full deposit of amount required for general stamp for sale certificate is not deposited by auction-purchaser within fifteen days, the sale is nullity and the property has to be resold and time for deposit cannot be extended.
Subbammal vs P. Gurusamy Thevar And Ors. on 22 January, 1974
In Subbammal v. P.G.Thewar, , it was held that the provisions of Order 21, Rule 85 C.P.C are mandatory though the purchase money was deposited within prescribed time and deposit of general stamps was not proper, the Court has no jurisdiction to extend time for payment of the deficient stamps.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Mool Chand vs Collector, Jalaun And Ors. on 18 December, 1981
In Ambati Raghavalu v. Mova Venkamma, Ambati Raghavalu v. Mova Venkamma, AIR 1962 AP 334, yet another Division Bench of this Court had arrived at a conclusion that failure to comply provisions of Order 21 Rule 85 C.P.C will make the
sale ineffective and me same view was expressed in Mool Chand v. Collector, Jalaun, .
Mathai Varkey And Anr. vs Varughese Chacko on 15 March, 1974
No doubt in Mathai Varkev v. V. Chacko, , while dealing with Order 21, Rule 85 of me C.P.C. as amended in Ker, it was held that the principle that a procedural enactment has to be construed liberally and in such manner as to render enforcement of substantive rights effective has to be applied to obviate injustice as well as absurd consequences.
G.M. Falkner, Official Assignee, High ... vs Mirza Mahammad Syed Ali And Ors. on 16 July, 1924
The same view was expressed in M.M.Shah v. Syed Mahmad, AIR 1954-2 MLJ 55 and also in Venkatammaiah v. Audinarayanaiah, AIR 1953-2 MLJ 177.
1