LawCite Search | LawCite Markup Tool | Help | Feedback Law Cite

Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva v UP & Others - WRIT - C    

Legislation Cited

Cases and Articles Cited

Case Name	Citation(s)	Court	Jurisdiction †	Date	Full Text		Citation Index
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
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
Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddy v Pujari Padmavathamma	[1977] 3 SCC 337			circa 1977			4
Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v Maharashtra	(2005) 7 SCC 605			circa 2005			21
Gajraj Jain v Bihar	(2004) 7 SCC 151			circa 2004			10