SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 1147

M.M.PUNCHHI, SUHAS C.SEN
Moolchand – Appellant
Versus
Fatima Sultana Begum – Respondent


Advocates:
A.SUBBA RAO, B.Kanta Rao

ORDER

1. In an administrative suit, the parties had agreed for sale of a property at Ootacamund in the State of Tamil Nadu. The receivers appointed by the court for the purpose sold the said property. The appellants herein are the purchasers thereof. Some of the parties to the suit raised objections to the sale purporting to be under Order 21, Rule 90 read with Section 151 CPC. An objection was raised before the trial court that such objections were not maintainable. The trial court framed a preliminary issue and went into the matter. It rejected the application as being not maintainable. The respondents herein took the matter in appeal to the High Court which was placed before a Division Bench for disposal. The High Court agreed with the trial court that an objection under Order 21, Rule 90 CPC to such a sale did not lie. But since the sale had been effected by the court through its appointed receivers, the High Court viewed that the court had full control and grip over the matter, empowering it to oversee whether the sale had been properly conducted and if there was any other objection thereto, what was the merit of the objection. This role of the court was spelled out by the Hig
























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top