Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Hotel Nataraj And Others vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation ... on 19 April, 1988
The next judgment relied upon by the Counsel in M/s. Hotel Nataraj and Others v Karnataka State Financial Corporation and Others. In the said judgment the Court noticed evidence of the judgment-debtor as I see from the facts. Therefore, mere argument without evidence to prove substantial injury is not acceptable in law. At the cost of repetition I would say that mandatory requirements of "proof to consider substantial injury" has to be placed on record. Since the same has not been done in this case this judgment is of no use to the judgment-debtor.
Desh Bandhu Gupta vs N.L.Anand & Rajinder Singh on 17 September, 1993
30. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Desh Bandhu Gupta, supra and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure here it cannot be said that the present case is one for setting aside the confirmation of sale.
Dhirendra Nath Gorai And Subal ... vs Sudhir Chandra Ghosh And Others on 4 March, 1964
26. The respondents' Counsel relied on a judgment of Supreme Court in Dhirendra Nath Gorai and Others v Sudhir Chandra Ghosh and Others. In the said case the Supreme Court noticed that when the judgment-debtor did not object for non-compliance with Section 35 it does not render the sale a nullity and also non-observance of the provision of that section no substantial injury was caused to the judgment-debtor, the sale is not liable to be set aside in an application under Order 21, Rule 90. The Supreme Court further noticed as under:
Shalimar Cinema vs Bhasin Film Corporation And Anr. on 19 August, 1987
19. Counsels on either side relied on number of judgments. The judgment-debtor's Counsel relied on a judgment of Nagpur High Court in Kisan Dinaji v Deorao Nathuji and Another, with regard to sale held before expiration of 30 days in terms of Order 21, Rule 68 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Shalimar Cinema v Bhasin Film Corporation and Another and Manjamma v S.N. Suryanarayana Rao and Others, with regard to the contention of the violation of Order 21, Rule 67. As I mentioned earlier contention is different from proving to the satisfaction of the Court in terms of Order 21, Rules 89 and 90. The Trial Judge rightly rules "no proof to his satisfaction" with which I agree in the case on hand. It is seen that the judgment of Nagpur High Court is before amendment of 1976. In the judgment of Supreme Court it is seen that evidence was factually led by the judgment-debtor and proved to the Court by material evidence. It was in those circumstances the Court ruled that on evidence injury was accrued to the judgment-debtor. In fact in that case the Court refused to consider the case of the auction purchaser on account of the failure on the part of the auction purchaser to adduce best evidence. Same argument holds good in this case also. Best evidence is not led by judgment-debtor and he has to suffer for the same.
Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1933
Section 35 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
A. Parvatham vs Bank Of Baroda, Represented By Its ... on 7 April, 2000
In the latest judgment of A. Parvatham v Bank of Baroda and Others, various judgments on the point was considered by the Madras High Court and the Madras High Court ruled in para 9 as under:
Manjamma vs S.N. Suryanarayana Rao And Ors. on 11 October, 1985
Insofar as Manjamma's case, supra, is concerned all that I would say is that the non-publication must have caused substantial injury in terms of Rule 90. Material facts as I have mentioned earlier would reveal in this case that on earlier occasion the sale was postponed for want of bidders. Second time after following the procedure, a bid of Rs. 14,55,000/- is accepted. On the facts of this case it cannot be said that on account of non-publication injustice is caused to the judgment-debtor on the facts of this case. In fact even in the case relied on by the judgment-debtor it is seen that evidence was recorded to prove the injury caused to judgment-debtor.
1