Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Murlidhar Gopal Sonar vs Ambersingh Laxman Pawar L.Rs. Gogibai & ... on 27 April, 2020 cites

Chanda (Dead) Through Lrs vs Rattni & Anr on 23 March, 2007

In the case of Chanda (Dead) Through L.Rs vs. Rattni and another, reported in 2007 AIR (SC) 1514, relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents, wherein the Supreme Court has observed the conduct of the decree holder in not depositing the amount and observed that it is full of malafide. In the cited case, the decree holder has not deposited the amount for six years.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 16 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Maruti Vishnu Kshirsagar vs Bapu Keshav Jadhav on 17 December, 1969

In the judgment of this Court in Maruti Vishnu Kshirsagar v. Bapu Keshav Jadhav, reported in AIR 1970 ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2020 06:32:07 ::: wp3466.05 -10- Bombay 398, which has been held to be a correct view by the Apex Court in its judgment in Ramankutty Guptan v. Avara reported in AIR 1994 SC 1699, a decree for specific performance of contract was passed on 27-8-1964 and the direction was given to the decree-holder to deposit an amount of Rs.700/- within a period of three months of the decree. In Civil Appeal No.376 of 1964, the Appellate Court, by its judgment and order dated 13-8-1965, modified the decree directing deposit of the amount within a period of one month. The period of one month expired on 13-9-1965, but the amount of balance consideration was not deposited by the decree-holder. The decree-holder deposited the amount on 21-9-1965.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Ramankutty Gupta vs Avara on 3 February, 1994

The Executing Court on 10-3-1966 condoned the delay and accepted the deposit. In appeal, the said order was set aside, against which approach was made to this Court. It has been held in the said judgment that the fixation of time is an incidental direction and granting extension of time does not result in the amendment of the decree. It has been further held that the Court has power to grant extension of time upon sufficient reasons being shown. A specific objection was raised that the application ought to have been filed before the Trial Court, but it was filed before the Executing Court and the said application could not have been decided by the Executing Court. It has been held that the Executing Court and the Trial Court being same and the suit having not been completely disposed of, the application for condonation of delay must be held to have been considered as a separate application made to the Trial Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 51 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1