Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.46 seconds)Section 18 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Bombay University Act, 1974
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs Jai Prakash University And Ors on 24 July, 2001
"In Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai
Prakash University and Others (2001
(6) SCC 534) it was noted as follows:
Sarvinder Singh vs Dalip Singh & Ors on 2 August, 1996
21. We are in respectful
agreement with the proposition of
law laid down by this Court in
Silverline Forum. In our opinion,
the doctrine
ig is based on the
principle that the person purchasing
property from the judgment debtor
during the pendency of the suit has
no independent right to property to
resist, obstruct or object execution
of a decree. Resistance at the
instance of transferee of a judgment
debtor during the pendency of the
proceedings cannot be said to be
resistance or obstruction by a
person in his own right and,
therefore, is not entitled to get
his claim adjudicated."
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Usha Sinha vs Dina Ram & Ors on 14 March, 2008
In
Usha Sinha's case (supra), the
respondents had filed a title Suit No.140 of
1999 on 10-4-1999 against five defendants.
Defendant Nos.4 and 5 sold their share during
the pendency of suit to the appellants. Suit
was decreed. Appellants filed Suit No.226 of
2001 with the prayer that decree in
respondents' suit of 1999 was null and void, as
fraudulent, collusive, etc.. The respondents
contested this suit. The respondents also took
out execution proceedings No.10 of 2002. The
appellants filed an application under Order
XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 and Order XXI, Rule 29 for
injunction to restrain execution proceedings,
till decision of Suit No.226 of 2001. This
application was rejected by the Court on
16-8-2003. The appellants then filed
application before executing Court for stay of
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:14:03 :::
34 AOGJR-542.10
proceedings. The executing Court stayed further
proceedings by order dated 20-11-2003. The
respondents i.e., the decree holder filed a
revision petition before High Court, which
allowed the revision and set aside the order of
the executing Court; which order was challenged
before the Supreme Court. In this context, the
Court observed as under:
Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another on 31 March, 1998
In Silverline Forum (P) Ltd.
v. Rajiv Trust, (1998) 3 SCC 723,
this Court held that where the
resistance is caused or obstruction
is offered by a transferee pendente
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:14:03 :::
37 AOGJR-542.10
lite, the scope of adjudication is
confined to a question whether he
was a transferee during the pendency
of a suit in which the decree was
passed. Once the finding is in the
affirmative, the executing court
must hold that he had no right to
resist or obstruct and such person
cannot seek protection from the
executing court. The Court stated:
M/S. Rukhana Enterprises vs M/S. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. & Ors on 3 November, 2009
23. The learned counsel for the appellants
in some of the appeals placed reliance on a
judgment of this Court in Rukhana Enterprises
v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. & Ors., reported in
2010 (1) Bom.C.R. 765, where this Court had
allowed impleadment of a transferee pendente
lite. The learned counsel submitted that this
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:14:03 :::
40 AOGJR-542.10
had been done after considering several
judgments including those of the Supreme Court.