Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)
Ram Karan Gupta vs J.S. Exim Ltd & Ors on 3 December, 2012 cites

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

In support of his contentions, reliance was placed on the judgments of this Court in Manilal Mohanlal Shah and Others v. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmad and another AIR 1954 SC 349 and Balram son of Bhasa Ram v. Ilam Singh and others AIR 1996 SC 2781. Learned senior counsel submitted that the appellant had preferred an application on 1.12.2010 before the Executing Court to allow the appellant to deposit the entire amount of the sale, after deduction of his one-forth share in the property, and handover the possession to him. Learned senior counsel submitted that the application was filed before the confirmation of sale, but was not considered by the Executing Court. Learned senior counsel submitted that only if the application is allowed under Order 21 Rule 92(2) CPC, the appellant could deposit the amount within the time stipulated in the said provision. Learned senior counsel submitted that the Executing Court has committed an error in confirming the sale before entertaining the application and allowing the same, so that the appellant could have deposited the entire amount. Learned senior counsel submitted that even now the appellant is willing to pay the entire amount deposited by the auction purchaser including interest. Further, it was also submitted that the appellant is willing even to pay Rs.1 crore more so that he can save the property where he is residing.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 150 - G Hasan - Full Document

Challamane Huchha Gowda vs M.R. Tirumala And Anr on 8 December, 2003

In Challamane Huchha Gowda (supra), the Court was primarily dealing with the question as to whether a mode of application has been prescribed for making an application for setting aside the sale. The Court noted that Order 21 Rule 89 CPC requires an application to be made for setting aside the sale, nothing is stated in the rule regarding the mode of application and then held that purshis contains an implicit prayer for setting aside the sale and the absence of a formal application does not amount to non- compliance with the provision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 36 - Full Document
1   2 Next