Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.84 seconds)Section 29 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 31 in The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 69 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951
Section 31 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Thressiamma Varghese vs Kerala State Financial Corporation And ... on 3 April, 1986
This is not at all a situation that occurs in the case before us. Learned counsel further urged that the law as laid down by the Calcutta and Andhra Pradesh High Courts in the authorities mentioned above reflects the unanimous view of the courts and, in this connection, he placed reliance also on the authorities of the Kerala High Court in Thressiamma Varghese v. Kerala State Financial Corporation, and K. Surendranathan v. Kerala Financial Corporation, . This being so and the petitioners having proposed to act under the powers vested in them by section 29 of the Act, it is obvious that there was no reason whatsoever for the learned District Judge to interfere with the orders of the trial court refusing the injunction. On the contrary, by interfering with these orders and by restraining the petitioners from acting in exercise of their powers under section 29, the District Judge has acted with material irregularity, if not illegality. The interference by this court in the exercise of its revisional powers is, therefore, required.
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Munnalal Gupta vs Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation ... on 7 May, 1975
He also was wrong in relying in the authority of the Allahabad High Court in Munnalal Gupta v. U. P. Financial Corporation, [FB], since the said decision stands only as regards a surety. What the Allahabad High Court held is that a Financial Corporation is not entitled to proceed directly under section 29 of the Act against a surety. It has to proceed under section 31.