Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.69 seconds)
Ramchandra Bhagat And Anr. vs Mrs. Eva Mitra And Ors. on 3 September, 1958 cites

Raja Raghunandan Prasad Singh vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 January, 1933

The effect of the legal position embodied in this rule is that the auction purchaser does not obtain an indefeasible right on the date of the sale for under p. 21, Ryles 89, 90 and 91, the sale may be set aside on various grounds. It is only where no application is made under these rules, or where such applicatoin is made and disallowed that the Court under Order 21, Rule 92, makes an order confirming the sale, whereupon "the sale shall Income absolute." (See Raghunandan Prasad Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, B. and O. AIR 1933 PC 101). In reply Mr. Mukharji put forward the argument that although the title of the purchaser is not complete till the confirmation of the sale he has nonetheless acquired an interest in the properties, and when the sale is not set aside in accordance with the provisions of rule 92 after the expiry of thirty days. the sale becomes automatically absolute and the confirmation of sale is a mere formal matter. It is true that under Rule 92 no sale can be confirmed or can become absolute until the expiration of the period of thirty days from the date of sale, and further it is duty of the Court to confirm the sale on the fulfilment of the conditions laid down in rule 92, even without an application by the party concerned, it will be wrong to say that there is an automatic confirmation of the sale after the expiration of thirty days.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 36 - Full Document
1