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

1968 Supreme(AP) 126

M.N.RAO, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
Sammac Enterprises, a registered firm rep. by its Managing Partner – Appellant
Versus
RAVULA VEERA RAGBAVA RAO – Respondent


( 1 ) IN these two revision petitions the question raised is whether attachment of a certain property at the instance of one creditor enures for the benefit of other subsequent creditors of the judgment-debtor who apply for execution before realisation of the assets of the judgment-debtor by the attaching court so as to defeat the rights of the intervening mortgagees. In other words, the scope of the explanation appended under section 64 of the Code of Civil procedure falls for examination and determination. As the question raised before me is of frequent occurrence and the executing Courts are invariably called upon to deal with the claims arising under section 64 of the Code of Civil procedure I am of the opinion that an authoritative pronouncement on this question by s Division Bench of this court is necessary.

( 2 ) PLACE the papers before the honourable the Acting Chief Justice for posting these two revision petitions before a Division Bench. These petitions Coming on for hearing before the Bench consequent upon the older of the Court Dt. 3-9-1985 referred to above. The court delivered the following : judgment (Judgment of the Bench delivered by M R. Rat), J.)

( 3 ) THESE two r

















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