S.B.SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU
Rosali V. – Appellant
Versus
Taico Bank – Respondent
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.—A judgment and order dated 8.01.1999 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in CRP No. 3528 of 1998 is in question before us, which arises in the following factual matrix.
2. M/s. Nellai Small Match Producers Service Industrial Co-op. Society Ltd. filed a suit against N. Dharmaraj, Respondent No. 2 herein in the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge in the State of Tamil Nadu for realization of some amount owing and due to it. The said suit was decreed. The said decree was transferred for execution to the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The matter ultimately was transferred to the Court of the 17th Additional City Civil Judge, Banaglore.
3. A proclamation of sale of immovable property bearing No. 1138/8, II Main Road, Vijaynagar, Bangalore was issued on 21.10.1988 whereupon the auction sale was held. In the said auction sale Smt. Mahadevi S. Havannavar became the highest bidder having given a bid for a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/-. The said deal was accepted by the learned Executing Court on 26.10.1988. It is stated that the said sale was conducted at about 4.00 p.m. on the said date and keeping in view of the fact that the banks at that time were cl
M/s. Gangavishan Heeralal v. M/s. Gopal Digambar Jain and Others
Keshava S. Jamkhandi v. Ramachandra S. Jamkhandi
K.S. Muthu v. T. Govindarajulu and Anr.
Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Ors.
Mohan Pandey v. Pooran Singh and Ors.
REFERRED TO : Manilal Mohanlal Shah and Ors. v. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahamad and Anr.
Satyabrata Biswas and Others v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku and Others
Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI Bombay (II)
Board of Control For Cricket in India and Another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club and Others
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Surinder Singh Banolta
Raghunath Rai Bareja and Another v. Punjab National Bank and Others
None of the provided case excerpts indicate that *Rosali V. v. Taico Bank & Others* (AIR 2007 SC 998 / (2009) 17 SCC 690) has been overruled, reversed, or invalidated. Conversely, the excerpts consistently show that the Supreme Court and other judicial bodies continue to cite, apply, and rely upon it as valid precedent.
### Followed/Applied/Relied Upon
The vast majority of the provided excerpts relate to the case **Rosali V. v. Taico Bank & Others** (cited as AIR 2007 SC 998 and (2009) 17 SCC 690).
**Cases:** Vinod Purohit VS Vijaya Bank - 2008 0 Supreme(Raj) 1387, Pradip Lahiri VS Federal Bank Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (2009), Ram Karan Gupta VS Dayanand Gupta - 2011 0 Supreme(Del) 1021, Narendra Kumar Goswami : Rajasthan Financial Corporation VS Rajasthan Financial Corporation - 2012 0 Supreme(Raj) 1846, Ram Karan Gupta v. J. S. Exam Ltd. and Others - 2012 Supreme(Online)(SC) 160, Shri Ram Karan Gupta vs M/s J.S. Exim Ltd. - 2012 Supreme(Online)(SC) 106, M. Lakshmi Narayana Choudhary VS Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras - Dishonour Of Cheque (2013), M. Lakshmi Narayana Choudhary VS Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras - Current Civil Cases (2013), Tamilnadu Organic VS State Bank Of India - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 384, Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. VS Sanjay Dalia - 2015 5 Supreme 88, Knovus Steels and Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad, Rep. By its Managing Director VS State Bank of India - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015), Knovus Steels and Infrastructure Limited VS State Bank of India - 2015 0 Supreme(AP) 347, Ch. Mahender VS D. Venkat Reddy - 2015 0 Supreme(AP) 525, Sridhar Enterprises VS Bank of Baroda - Dishonour Of Cheque (2016), Sridhar Enterprises VS Bank of Baroda, ARM Branch - 2016 0 Supreme(AP) 46, Narottam Mishra VS Election Commission of India - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 2218, Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd VS Tata Sons Ltd - 2017 0 Supreme(NCLAT) 265, Barindra Overseas Private Ltd. VS Shilpa Shares and Securities - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 810, Barindra Overseas Private Ltd. VS Shilpa Shares and Securities a Registered Partnership Firm - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 811, Bharat Bhogilal Patel Hindu VS Leitz Tooling Systems India Private Limited - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 1016, Leitz Tooling Systems India Private Limited VS Bharat Bhogilal Patel - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 813, Gas Point Petroleum India Limited VS Rajendra Marothi - 2023 1 Supreme 719, Om Gurusai Construction Company VS V. N. Reddy - 2024 2 Supreme 505, Godithi Veera Prasad, S/o. Venkata Rao VS Chundru Srinivasu, S/o. Kondala Rao - 2024 0 Supreme(AP) 1089, PRINCY K. vs THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER - 2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13102.
**Explanation:** These entries demonstrate that the courts use *Rosali V.* as the authoritative interpretation for the term "immediately" under Order 21 Rule 84 of the CPC, specifically validating the practice of depositing bid amounts on the day following an auction if the bank/court was closed.
### Affirmative Statements of Legal Principles
The following entries set out legal principles without explicit references to overruling or conflicting precedents:
**Pradip Lahiri VS Federal Bank Ltd. - Current Civil Cases (2009):** Affirms deposit timing regarding auction sales.
**Knovus Steels and Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad, Rep. By its Managing Director VS State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - Current Civil Cases (2015):** Affirms procedural regularity in bank security sales regarding the SARFAESI Act/DRT proceedings.
**Board Of Control For Cricket, India VS Netaji Cricket Club - 2005 1 Supreme 507, Lalit Mohan Pandey VS Pooran Singh - 2004 3 Supreme 562, KESHAVA S. JAMKHANDI VS RAMACHANDRA S. JAMKHANDI - 1980 0 Supreme(Kar) 79, Dove Investments Pvt. LTD. VS Gujarat Industrial Inv. Corporation - 2006 2 Supreme 41, State Of H. P. VS Surinder Singh Banolta - 2006 9 Supreme 15, RAMNARAYAN TRIYOGINARAYAN TRIVEDI VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 1961 0 Supreme(MP) 54, Ram Chandra Singh VS Savitri Devi - 2003 7 Supreme 267:** These entries contain independent legal maxims or procedural guidelines (e.g., fraud on the court, interpretation of terms like "immediately" in other statutory contexts, and election petition requirements).
None. The provided list consists either of judicial citations consistently following *Rosali V. v. Taico Bank* or independent legal points/propositions that do not reference any conflicting precedent. The status of all cases appears to be consistent with established legal practice as reflected in the provided snippets.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.