Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v Maharashtra
|
(2005) 7 SCC 605
|
|
|
circa 2005
|
|
|
21
|
Gajraj Jain v Bihar
|
(2004) 7 SCC 151
|
|
|
circa 2004
|
|
|
10
|
Air 2003 SC 2889
|
AIR 2003 SC 2889
|
Supreme Court of India
|
India
|
circa 2003
|
|
|
52
|
Air 1994 SC 2151
|
AIR 1994 SC 2151
|
Supreme Court of India
|
India
|
circa 1994
|
|
|
62
|
Maharashtra v Prabhu
|
[1993] INSC 472; (1994) 2 SCC 481
|
Supreme Court of India
|
India
|
3 Nov 1993
|
LIIofIndia
|
|
64
|
Air 1992 SC 1857
|
AIR 1992 SC 1857
|
Supreme Court of India
|
India
|
circa 1992
|
|
|
3
|
Ambati Narasayya v M Subba Rao & Anr
|
[1989] INSC 305; 1989 2 SCALE 806; 1989 4 JT 50; 1989 2 SCC Supl 693; 1989 1 SCR Supl 451; AIR 1990 SC 119
|
Supreme Court of India
|
India
|
6 Oct 1989
|
LIIofIndia
|
|
8
|
Indian Cement v Andhra Pradesh
|
[1988] INSC 5; 1988 1 SCALE 43; 1988 1 JT 84; 1988 1 SCC 743; 1988 2 SCR 574; AIR 1988 SC 567
|
Supreme Court of India
|
India
|
12 Jan 1988
|
LIIofIndia
|
|
5
|
Appendix 'E' second para and the Court Rules also envisage the mandate It is a reminder to the court that it has a statutory duty to issue notice to the judgment debtor before settlement of the terms of proclamation of sale Form 24 of Appendix " E " second para and the Court Rules also envisage the mandate It is a reminder to the court that it has a statutory duty to issue notice to the judgment debtor before settlement of the terms of proclamation of sale Then only the proviso to Rule 66(2) comes into play dispensing with multiplicity of notices and not dispensation of mandatory compliance of notice to the judgment debtor Had it been a case where notice was served and the appellant lay by without objecting to the valuation given by the decree holder certainly that would be put against the appellant to impugn the irregularities after the sale or the under valuation settled by the Court in the proclamation of sale The further contentions of both the counsel that merely because there is no order under Order 21 Rule 66(2), it cannot be construed that the Execution Court had not applied its mind in settling the terms of the proclamation of sale is one on desperation Except giving a schedule of dates for conducting the sale the Execution Court totally abdicated its duty to scrupulously comply with the mandatory procedure and did not apply its mind to the mandatory duty cast on it by Order 21 Rule 66 to settle the terms to proclamation of sale, and proper publication under Rule 67 after 20,1979 the court had merely ensured its publication on the court notice board and on the site at the respective dates and no further This Court in Shalimar Cinema Vs Bhasin Film Corpn reported in
|
|
Supreme Court of India
|
India
|
circa 1987
|
|
|
4
|
M P Mittal v Haryana
|
[1984] INSC 189; 1984 2 SCALE 555; 1984 4 SCC 371; 1985 1 SCR 940; AIR 1984 SC 1888
|
Supreme Court of India
|
India
|
10 Oct 1984
|
LIIofIndia
|
|
48
|
Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddy v Pujari Padmavathamma
|
[1977] 3 SCC 337
|
|
|
circa 1977
|
|
|
4
|
Kayjay Industries (P) Ltd v Asnew Drums (P) Ltd
|
[1974] INSC 63; (1974) 2 SCC 213; 1974 3 SCR 678; AIR 1974 SC 1331
|
Supreme Court of India
|
India
|
20 Mar 1974
|
LIIofIndia
|
|
9
|
Binani v CIT, West Bengal
|
AIR 1970 SC 645; (1971) 3 SCC 20
|
Supreme Court of India
|
India
|
circa 1970
|
|
|
92
|
Janak Raj v Gurdial Singh & Anr
|
[1966] INSC 249; [1967] 2 SCR 77; AIR 1967 SC 608
|
Supreme Court of India
|
India
|
8 Nov 1966
|
LIIofIndia
|
|
17
|
Dhirendra Nath Gorai and Subal Chandrashaw v Sudhir Chandra Ghosh
|
[1964] INSC 55; (1964) 6 SCR 1001; 10 ILR 35; AIR 1964 SC 1300
|
Supreme Court of India
|
India
|
4 Mar 1964
|
LIIofIndia
|
|
17
|