Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Nani Gopal Paul vs T. Prasad Singh & Ors on 6 March, 1995
17.Further, the decision in Nani Gopal Paul v. T.Prasad Singh and Others, cited supra, in paragraph No.4, it is seen that the Court would not remain a mute or helpless spectator to obvious and manifest, when the illegality was committed in conducting Court sales. As stated in the aforesaid paragraph, the petitioner has not satisfied that there is irregular and illegal in the sale proceedings.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 127 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 48 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
A.P.V. Rajendran vs S.A. Sundararajan And Ors. on 14 June, 1979
23.In such circumstances, I am of the view that the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner that no Notice has been issued, does not merit acceptance. Further, as per the decision A.P.V. Rajendran v. S.A.Sundararajan and Others, AIR 1980 Mad. 123, if the Sale is sought to be set aside on the ground of material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 90, the Section 47 cannot come into play at all, and the Sale could be set aside only by invoking Order 21, Rule 90. So, the Revision Petitioner / Judgment-debtor ought to have filed an Application within a period of 60 days from the date of Sale, as per Article 127. But, the Sale was conducted on 27.09.2007 and the present Application came to be filed only on 18.04.2009. Hence, I am of the view that only in Order to circumvent the period of limitation, the Revision Petitioner/Judgment-debtor has filed the Application under Section 47, C.P.C. Therefore, the petition filed under Section 47, C.P.C. is not maintainable"
G. Chandrasekaran vs Palaniappa Company And Ors. on 29 August, 2005
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, relied on yet another decision of this Court in G.Chandrasekaran vs. Palaniappa Company and others (AIR 2006 MADRAS 104) wherein paragraph No.24 reads as follows:
1