Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.29 seconds)
Kumari C Neha D/O C Pandurangshetty vs C Pandurangshetty S/O Narasimhayya ... on 18 February, 2013 cites

Sri Krishna Singh vs Mathura Ahir And Ors on 21 December, 1979

8. Unfortunately these two judgements were not brought to the notice of the judge who passed the orders in CRP No. 253/2011. The said judgement seems counter to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement. In that view of the matter merely because the conditions stipulated in Order XXI Rule 29 is fulfilled it cannot be said that the executing court has no discretion except to stay the execution of further proceedings. The word is used "may" the discretion is left to the court. It is judicial discretion. It has to be exercised keeping in mind the facts of that particular case. Such a discretion is to be exercised keeping in mind the judgement of the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 88 - A P Sen - Full Document

U Sadananda Udupa vs Smt T.Kusuma Shedthi on 19 September, 2011

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relying on judgement of this Court in the case of U Sadananda Udupa .vs. Smt T.Kusuma Shedthi in CRP No.253/2011 disposed off on 19th day of September 2011, submits that the trial court ought to have granted stay. Once the condition stipulated under Order XXIX Rule 20 complied with. The valuable right of the minor daughters involved and the father being vagabond has alienated the property without legal necessity and the said alienation is not for the benefit of the minors and therefore, pending disposal of the suit further proceedings have to be stayed, otherwise the property will be sold and they would be put to irreparable hardship.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - J Rahim - Full Document
1