Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)
Shri Sunil Gupta vs Canara Bank And Anr. on 25 September, 2017 cites

C.N.Paramsivan & Anr vs Sunrise Plaza Tr.Partner & Ors on 9 January, 2013

12. We may note here that the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to urge before us that the principal borrower was never opposed to the condonation of delay and has not filed any objections. This cannot be a ground for us to interfere in the matter in view of the legal position stated above. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the respondent/Bank had initially given its consent to waive the delay in making the deposit. Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank, who appears on advance copy, submits that this may have been the position earlier, but now intending buyers are approaching the Bank with offers that are higher than the bid amount offered by the petitioner. Even if, the respondent/Bank would have supported the case of the petitioner, the legal position cannot change having regard to the view expressed in the case of C.N. Paramsivan & Anr. (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 36 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Manilal Mohanlal Shah And Others vs Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmad And ... on 14 April, 1954

"28. It is clear from a plain reading of the above that the provision is mandatory in character. The use of the word "shall" is both textually and contextually indicative of the making of the deposit of the amount being a mandatory requirement. The provisions of Rules 57 and 58 of the Income-tax Rules, have their equivalent in Order XXI, Rules 84, 85 & 86 of the C.P.C. which are pari materia in language, sweep and effect and have been held to be mandatory by this Court in Manilal Mohanlal Shah and Ors. v. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmed and Anr. (AIR 1954 SC 349) in the following words:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 150 - G Hasan - Full Document
1