Code Of Civil Procedure 1908 Rule 10a To 10c Commissions For Scientific Investigation Performance Of Ministerial Act And Sale Of Movable Property - Judgment Search Results

Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh Vs. State of Bombay (Now Gujarat)

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1965SC1153; (1965)67BOMLR673; [1965]2SCR547; [1965]2STC547(SC)

satisfied, a decision, if it fell under s. II of Code, would be res judicata in a subsequent suit; and even by any enactment in force. Section 2 provided that the Civil Courts would not take cognizance of any suit brought on completely governed by s. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure." and then reference was made to what has been said provisions of the Code. The preamble of the Code of 1908 reads "Whereas it is expedient to consolidate and amend the policy which in turn is an essential part of the rule of law then the objection that the rule cannot be have rightly held that the decision of the Extra Assistant Commissioner in the first suit was not conclusive as to the its nature, is to be issued mainly to compel the performance by a public servant of his duty of a public regulations, that the contractors of that State were bound to act according to them, that the Baria State had rules known of auctions which took place under the 'Conditions of Auction Sale of Forests in the Baria State in the Samvat year and Limkheda in the State and the debts or other movable or immovable property belonging to them and for delivering the gift away or otherwise dispose of whatever movable or immovable property they had in the State without the permission of the

Ayisha Beevi and ors. Vs. Sheik Mydeen and ors.

Court: Chennai

so, the Court referred to the distinction maintained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, between the Appellate Jurisdiction and Revisional Jurisdiction the order of the High Court passed in the first civil revision petition as a nullity and one passed without jurisdiction, The High Court should be left to adopt its own procedure for granting relief to the persons concerned. The High Court of Art.182 (2) of Sch.1 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908”. (viii) In AIR 1979 Raj. 179 - Jamna Lal v. indication that all these provisions are also applicable to appeals. Rule 12 gives an indication, though in a negative form, that appeal, the second appeal abated and the decree for specific performance passed by the first Appellate Court attained finality. To come or failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it or acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. cents out of the total of 14-1/2 cents under a Sale Deed dated 2.11.1982 itself. Therefore when Shahul Hameed filed CRP the petition was not maintainable inasmuch as the entire suit property in O.S.No.420 of 1976 had been shown; (ii) that the

P.G. Ranganatha Padayachi Vs. the Mayavaram Financial Corporation Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1974Mad1

an contemplated under the proviso to Section 51 of the Code for ordering detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison. But a perusal of the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would show that the proviso to Section 51, which the proviso to Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court is bound to record in writing its satisfaction appeared in Court in obedience to the notice issued under Rule 37(1) on the date on which the order of arrest removed any part of his property, or committed any other act of bad faith in relation to his property; or(b) that passed, dishonestly transferred, concealed, or removed any part of his property, or committed any other act of bad faith in relation

Dr. T. Varghese George Vs. Kora K. George and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2011(4)KLT88(SN)(C.No.97); 2011(5)LW673; (2012)1SCC369; 2012(1)SCJ616; 2011AIRSCW6149; AIR2012SC144

already confirmed that finding. Explanation IV to Section 11 of Code of CPC clearly lays down that any matter which might treating it as a Public Charitable Trust? Facts leading to Civil Appeal No. 6786 of 2003 are this wise -2. One the purview of section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure as contended by the second defendant?7. Whether this court has this trust under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC' for short) by treating it as a Public Charitable the observations of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (Tamil Nadu Act) from a Civil Court which had been left undisturbed in that even assuming that there was any irregularity in the sale of 5 acres of land and that the price fetched (f) authorizing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged;(g) settling a scheme;

P.Singaravel Vs. Ammani Ammal and anr.

Court: Chennai

to the defendant to file Application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for proper relief. It will be open defendant to file Application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for proper relief. It will be open to the available under Order 7, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. In fact, there is a provision enabling the Appellate Court be made on the same grounds available under Order 7, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. In fact, there is of 1996 and O.S.No.48 of 1996. All the three specific performance suits have been filed to enforce the agreement of sale Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. The word 'document' employed in Section 149 of Code 2005 to the file of the First Additional District Judge, Salem. 2. The Civil Revision Petition No.1756 of 2009 is filed fide mistake) valued under particular provisions of law under Court-Fee Act or where he could not pay the required Court-Fee for

Kasturi Radhakrishna Murty Vs. Kasturi Lakshminarasamma

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1972AP256

from attachment under clause (I) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the only amount that remains for under clause (I) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the only amount that remains for consideration is clause (I) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the only amount that remains for consideration is Rs. on duty or on leave.'5. Section 60(1) makes all sale-able property, either moveable or immovable, belonging to the judgment-debtor, or over whether on duty or on leave.'5. Section 60(1) makes all sale-able property, either moveable or immovable, belonging to the judgment-debtor, or on duty or on leave.'5. Section 60(1) makes all sale-able property, either moveable or immovable, belonging to the judgment-debtor, or over

K. Chandrasekharam and Another Vs. Vijay Bhargavi Chit Fund Private Li ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2000(1)ALD761; 2000(2)ALT32

noticing: 'Provisions applicable to attachment:'11-A (1) The provisions of this Code applicable to an attachment made in execution of a decree read with Order XXI, Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure directing the third party to the suit, viz., BHEL be ordered against a third party and there is no procedure prescribed for impleading third parties in the 1A filed for of execution of a decree and therefore it will attract Rule 54 in case of immovable properties. As long back as orders' bears the heading 'Attachment of debt, share and other property not in possession of judgment debtor'. The said rule provides of the Court. So also, in the case of other movable properties, the person in possession of the same can be the Court. So also, in the case of other movable properties, the person in possession of the same can be prohibited

Muvvala Ramachandra Rao and Another Vs. Kuricheti Ravi and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1999(3)ALD101; 1999(3)ALT136

beneficial to extract Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.'(1) Where any claim is preferred to or objection under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also alleged that this objection has been of Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure without holding an enquiry and without giving opportunity to the the appellants filed EA 80 of 1997 under Order 21 Rule 58 for releasing the disputed property from attachment on the Code of Civil Procedure and on that count, refuse to investigate the claim; but if the Court does not exercise the Subordinate Judge, Tenali, in OS 100 of 1995 for specific performance of the contract dated 14-11-1994 against both the respondents and denied that the appellants were in possession of the disputed property. The appellants had knowledge about the attachment before judgment of property from attachment on the strength of the agreement of sale dated 14-11-1994 alleging that the second respondent had agreed to in execution of a decree on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, the Court shall proceed

Parchuri Sivaram Prasad Vs. Smt. Balatripura Sundari

Court: Andhra Pradesh

application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to grant police-aid by way of of convenience is in his favour. Further the learned Senior Civil Judge considering Ex.A-1 certified copy of registered gift settlement deed be illegal.  9. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:  Section 10 : Stay of Suit - the trial of subsequent suit. Section lays down only the rule of procedure and it does not affect the jurisdiction of it cannot be said that the learned Senior Civil Judge acted illegally either in passing the order granting interim injunction or that the suit schedule land is the ancestral joint family property left by late Parchuri Venkateswara Rao, the father of the

V.L.Kaliannan Vs. Jagadambal and ors.

Court: Chennai

Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for cross-examination and re-examination of a Erode in I.A.No.277 of 2012 in A.S.No.30 of 2011, this civil revision petition has been focussed.3. A summation and summarisation of Rule 4 of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for cross-examination and re-examination of a witness which shall re-examination. Rule 4 Order 18 speaks of examination-in-chief. The unamended rule provided for the manner in which "evidence" is to be witness which shall be taken by the Court or the Commissioner appointed by it."In Kailash v. Nanhku ([2005] 4 SCC 480), including all steps necessary thereto. The trial commences with the performance of the first act or steps necessary or essential to run thus:"7. By reason of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002), the Parliament inter alia inserted absolute owner of the suit properties by virtue of registered sale deed dated 13.12.1995;- restraining the defendants, their men, agents, etc., to mould the relief and grant possession of the suit property in a suit for injunction, if from the available evidence,