Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
D.Arunachalam vs The Sub Registrar on 23 September, 2022 cites

S.Praveen Bohra vs Joint-I Sub-Registrar on 4 March, 2016

6. The issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra as similar issue was considered by this Court in the case of S.Praveen Bohra Vs. Joint-I Sub-Registrar reported in 2016 (3) CTC 493, wherein this Court categorically held that the order of attachment cannot be a bar to register the Page No.8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16257 of 2022 document. The present case on hand makes it clear that the pending order of attachment is not only agents enforceable under the order of attachment and not interpret other claim. Merely there is an order of attachment by the Civil Court and the same cannot be a ground for refusing to register the document.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 39 - R Subbiah - Full Document

Prasad Technology Park Pvt. Ltd vs Sub Registrar & Ors on 8 December, 2005

“6. It is relevant to refer to the unreported judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) No.2635 of 2012, dated 13.03.2013, in the case of M/s.K.D.P.Properties Private Limited vs. The Sub-Registrar and other, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein, in paragraph No.18, a reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1985) 2 SCC 167, Balkrishan Gupta and others vs. Swadeshi Polytex Limited and another, and it was held as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 17 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Balkrishan Gupta And Ors vs Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. And Anr on 12 February, 1985

19.The dictum laid down in the above judgment (1985) 2 SCC 167 (supra), gives a fitting answer to the issue raised in this writ petition. So far as the order of attachment passed by the DRT is concerned, the transfer is not void generally but it is void only as against the claims enforceable under the said attachment. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the sale of the property attached cannot be construed as illegal sale. However, if the 2nd respondent bank exercises its right as against the property, the petitioner cannot raise any objection because the sale of the vendor in favour of the petitioner is void in respect of the order of attachment obtained by the 2nd respondent bank. So, even if the property is sold in favour of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent bank can always exercise its right as against the said property.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 78 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document
1