Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.27 seconds)
Bangaru Krishnarjuna And 3 Others vs Dasari Atchutamba And Another on 29 September, 2016 cites

Takaseela Pedda Subba Reddy vs Pujari Padmavathamma & Ors on 28 April, 1977

8. The Apex Court in Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddi Vs. Pujari Padmavathamma categorically held that the party can apply for non compliance of the mandatory provision of Order XXI Rule 64 CPC by the Court, in seeking to set aside the sale. There also the D.Hr. was the auction purchaser. It was observed that it is manifest where amount specified in proclamation of sale for recovery of which the sale was ordered is realized by sale of certain items, further items to be stopped. Non compliance with the provision went to the very root of the jurisdiction of the executing Court and was sufficient to vitiate the sale. Even absence of objection by the Judgment Debtor before executing Court is not a ground as the very executing court derives jurisdiction to sell the properties attached, only to the point at which the decree is fully satisfied and thereby non-compliance of the procedure by the executing Court, which is duty bound is suffice to set aside the very sale. The words necessary to satisfy the decree used in Rule 64 clearly indicate that, no sale can be allowed beyond the decretal amount mentioned in the sale proclamation. Thus, non- compliance with the mandatory provision is sufficient to vitiate the sale.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 50 - S M Ali - Full Document

Ambati Narasayya vs M. Subba Rao & Anr on 6 October, 1989

9. The other expression in this regard reiterated the same of the Apex Court is Ambati Narasayya Vs. M.Subba Rao , where it is held that if the property is allowed to sale for decree to be satisfied is a small, the Court should allow only such portion of the property attached to be sold which would be sufficient to satisfy the claim of the decree holder. It is immaterial where the property is one and indivisible. Even if the property is one and indivisible, where a part thereof can be sold without violating any provision of law, then only such portion of property should be sold. This is not a just discretion, but an obligation imposed on the executing court and the sale held without examining this aspect and not in conformity with the mandatory requirement is per se illegal and without jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 132 - K J Shetty - Full Document

S. Mariyappa (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors. vs Siddappa And Anr. on 11 February, 2004

10. The other expressions of the apex court in this regard are S.S. Dayananda Vs. K.S. Nagesh Rao , Desh Bandhu Gupta Vs. N.L. Anand , Lal Chand Vs. VIII ADJ , S.Mariyappa Vs. Siddappa and Balakrishnan Vs. Malaiyandi Konar and Sai Enterprises Vs. Bhimreddy Laxmaiah and the recent expression of this Court (another bench) in Kamireddy Sumathi Vs. C.M. Reddy .
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

Pandurangan And Anr. vs Dasu Reddy on 19 January, 1972

6. A perusal of the E.P. schedule shows the total extent of survey No.315/B-Ac.1-11 cents, S.No.315/A-Ac.0-15 cents and S.No.315/C is Ac.1-50 cents totally comprise of Ac.2-76 cents and with common boundaries given in the E.P. Schedule for the entire Ac.2-76 cents. A perusal of the order of the lower court in dismissing the application is mainly on two counts viz., auction was held on 23.04.2013 and the application filed is by mentioning order XXI rule 90 CPC to set aside the sale and the decision placed reliance in Pandurangan and Another Vs. Dasu Reddy indicates the application can be filed to set aside the sale even after sale has been confirmed and sale certificate is issued. But when Order XXI Rule 90 clause (3) speaks no such application shall be entertained upon any ground which the applicant could have taken on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up and thereby the application is not maintainable. It is the observation that among the four claim petitioners, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 already filed E.A.No.245/2010 under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC to raise attachment under execution of the property effected that was dismissed for default though same is no bar, it shows they got knowledge about the sale proclamation.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Sukumar De vs Bimala Auddy & Ors on 28 October, 2013

11. This scope of seeking to set aside the sale under Order XXI Rules 89 to 93 CPC, are different though Rule 90 also covers to some extent to this scope of Order XXI Rule 64 CPC. What Rule 89 provides even to any person interested in the property sold may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing within 60 days to the date of sale, for payment to auction purchaser a sum equal to 5% of purchase money and payment to Decree Holder, the amount specified in the proclamation of sale, less any amount since date of proclamation paid to the Decree Holder and with further liability to costs and interest not covered by the sale proclamation, to protect the constitutional right to property as held in Sukumar De Vs. Bimala Auddy , Challamava Huchha Gowda Vs. M.R. Tirumala , Tribhovandas Purshottamdas Thekkar Vs. Ratilal Motilal Patel and Hindi Pracharak Prakashan Vs. M/s. G.K. Brothers .
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 Next