Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Section 53 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
C. Abdul Shukoor Saheb vs Arji Papa Rao And Others on 14 November, 1962
"10.....................it must be borne in mind that the onus of
proving want of good faith in the transferee is on the
creditor who impugns the transactions. But where fraud
on the part of the transferor is established, i.e. by the
terms of Para (1) of S. 53(l), the burden of proving that
the transferee fell within the exception upon him and in
order to succeed the transferee must establish that he
was not a party to the design of the transferor and that
he did not share the intention with which the transfer has
been effected but that he took the sale honestly believing
that the transfer was in the ordinary and normal course
of business. (See: C. Abdul Shukoor Saheb v. Arji Papa
Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1150)".
Rajender Singh & Ors vs Santa Singh & Ors on 16 August, 1973
In Rajender Singh & Ors v.
Santa Singh & Ors, AIR 1973 SC 2537, Section 52 was further
analysed as follows:
Vijayalakshmi Leather Industries (P) ... vs K. Narayanan, Lalitha, ... on 27 January, 2003
14. Keeping in view the avowed object, the
expression 'transferee from the judgment debtor'
has been interpreted to mean the 'transferee from
a transferee from the judgment-debtor [vide
Vijayalakshmi Leather Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. K.
Narayanan, Lalitha, AIR 2003 Mad 203].
Section 9 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Usha Sinha vs Dina Ram & Ors on 14 March, 2008
19. The NAFED's best argument in this context relies on the
Supreme Court's ruling in Usha Sinha v Dina Ram and Ors., (2008) 7
SCC 144, where the Court dealt with the effect of Order XXI, Rule
102, CPC, (which excluded from application Rules 97 to 101). The
said rules give third parties the right to obstruct execution
proceedings, and claim rival title. Rule 102 states that:
1