Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)Kerala Fisheries Corporation Ltd. vs P.S. John And Ors. on 10 April, 1996
The doctrine of election is not applicable to such a situation since that principle would apply only in cases where the two courses of action available are mutually exclusive, and the opposite party on the faith of the representation by conduct or
otherwise, had acted to his detriment or has adopted a course of action which otherwise he would not have resorted to. The decision of the Division Bench was approved by a Full Bench of this court in Kerala Fisheries Corporation v. P.S. John [1996] 1 KLT 814 ; [1997] 88 Comp Cas 104.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Kerala Agro-Industries ... vs U. Gopalakrishna Kunikullaya on 24 March, 1997
I have to point out with respect that the decision in Kerala Agro Industries Corporation's case [1997] 1 KLJ 693 (Ker) goes against the accepted principles of law and cannot therefore be considered to be an authority for the proposition said to have been enunciated in that decision as claimed by counsel.
Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968
Canara Bank vs T.K. Thankappan on 23 June, 1989
Learned counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that the case in Canara Bank v. Thankappan [1989] 2 KLT 74 was a converse case, but I do not think that that would make any difference to the principle that was recognised by the Division Bench and its applicability to the present case. It is not possible to hold that the two remedies open to the decree holder are mutually exclusive. It is also not possible to hold that the judgment debtor has acted to his detriment by accepting one of the courses of action adopted by the decree holder. Here, apart from paying some amounts in driblets towards the amount claimed in the execution petition, nothing has been done by the plaintiff to his detriment because of the filing of the execution petition by the bank. Thus, both on principle and on fact there would arise no estoppel by election in this case.
Section 71 in Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
A.P. State Financial Corpn vs Gar Re-Rolling Mills on 10 February, 1994
In view of the fact that this point is covered by the decision of the Division Bench which was approved by the Full Bench, I do not think it necessary to advert in more detail to the decisions in Andhra Pradesh Financial Corporation v. Gar Re-rolling Mills [1994] 80 Comp Cas 140 ; AIR 1994 SC 2151, Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. Swift Industries [1994] 80 Comp Cas 311 (Bom), Karnataka State Financial Corporation v. Rafiq, ILR [1995] Kar 932 ; [1996] 85 Comp Cas 47 and in Haryana Financial Corporation Ltd. v. Bags and Cartons, AIR 1997 P & H 176 ; [1998] 94 Comp Cas 704 [FB] relied on by counsel for defendant No. 5, the auction purchaser.
Haryana Financial Corporation Ltd., ... vs Bags And Cartons And Another on 3 December, 1996
In view of the fact that this point is covered by the decision of the Division Bench which was approved by the Full Bench, I do not think it necessary to advert in more detail to the decisions in Andhra Pradesh Financial Corporation v. Gar Re-rolling Mills [1994] 80 Comp Cas 140 ; AIR 1994 SC 2151, Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. Swift Industries [1994] 80 Comp Cas 311 (Bom), Karnataka State Financial Corporation v. Rafiq, ILR [1995] Kar 932 ; [1996] 85 Comp Cas 47 and in Haryana Financial Corporation Ltd. v. Bags and Cartons, AIR 1997 P & H 176 ; [1998] 94 Comp Cas 704 [FB] relied on by counsel for defendant No. 5, the auction purchaser.