Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.39 seconds)
Punjab National Bank vs M/S.Sri Anjaneya Cottons on 21 June, 2023 cites

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, _________ Page 13 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24630 of 2019 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

Vidaya Devi vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 8 January, 2020

20. These issues have been thoroughly deliberated and elaborately discussed in Ramayee’s case, which has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the effect of the first proviso is to set at naught to the above declaration of law by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench and it nullifies the several provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, as stated above. The authorities under the Registration Act have no jurisdiction to make rules which have the direct and immediate effect of restraining transactions which are permitted _________ Page 6 of 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24630 of 2019 under the Transfer of Property Act. Such a restriction would be clearly illegal and violative of a citizen’s right to deal with his property and would clearly infringe Article 300-A of the Constitution. It does not bear repetition that Article 300-A has now been recognised as a human right [Vidya Devi v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2020 2 SCC 569].
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 220 - I Malhotra - Full Document
1   2 Next