Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.66 seconds)
Balram Son Of Bhasa Ram vs Tlam Singh & Ors on 23 August, 1996 cites

Radha Krishna vs Bisheshar Sahay on 25 May, 1922

xxx xxx xxx The scheme of the rules quoted above may be shortly stated A decree-holder cannot purchase property at the Court-auction in execution of his own decree without the express permission of the Court and that when he does so with such permissions he is entitled to a set-off, but if he does so without such permission, then the Court has a discretion to set aside the sale upon the application by the judgment-debtor, or any other person whose interests are affected by the sale (Rule 72)~ As a matter of pure construction this provision is obviously directory and not mandatory - See Rai Radha Krishna and Others Vs. Bisheshar Sahal and Others (49 IA 3125. The moment a person is declared to be the purchaser, he is bound to deposit 25 per cent of the purchase-money unless he happens to be the decree- holder, in which case the Court may not require him to do so (Rule 84). The provision regarding the deposit of 25 per sent by the purchaser other than the decree- holder is mandatory as the language of the rule suggests, The full amount of the purchase-money must be paid within fifteen days from the date of the sale but the decree holder is entitled to the advantage of a set-off. The provision for payment is however, mandatory. (Rule 85). If the payment is not made within the per period of fifteen days, the Court. has the discretion to forfeit the deposit, and there the discretion ends but the obligation of the Court to resell the property is imperative. A further consequence of non- payment is that the defaulting purchaser forfeits all claim to the property.....(Rule 86).
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 23 - Full Document
1