Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Anita International VS Tungabadra Sugar Works Mazdoor Sangh...
Checking relevance for Allahabad Bank VS Canara Bank...
2000 3 Supreme 205 : Under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), rateable distribution of sale proceeds is permissible only if a person seeking such share has obtained a decree or an order of adjudication from the Tribunal and has complied with other conditions laid down under Section 73. In the context of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the Canara Bank could not invoke the principles underlying Section 73 CPC because it had not obtained any decree or adjudication of its debt from the Tribunal, nor had it complied with the other provisions of Section 73 CPC. Therefore, the Canara Bank lacked locus standi to claim a share in the balance sale proceeds realized under the RDB Act. The judgment further clarifies that the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over adjudication and execution of debts, and no other court or authority, including the Company Court, can interfere with these proceedings. Consequently, the recovery and distribution of sale proceeds under the RDB Act are governed solely by the Tribunal, and the principles of Section 73 CPC do not apply to a party that has not secured a decree or adjudication from the Tribunal.Checking relevance for Lakshman Swarup Om Prakash VS Union Of India...
1997 0 Supreme(SC) 822 : Under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when assets are held by a court and multiple decree-holders have made applications for execution of decrees against the same judgment-debtor without obtaining satisfaction, the proceeds of execution sale (balance sale proceeds) must be rateably distributed among all such decree-holders after deducting costs of realisation. The money remains the property of the judgment-debtor until it is distributed. A decree-holder has locus standi to participate in the rateable distribution process. The court has custody of the balance sale proceeds, and any party, including the Union of India under Section 226(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, may intervene by applying to the court for payment of amounts due to them from the proceeds, provided the money is still in the court’s custody on the date of application. The fact that a decree-holder has already received a cheque and encashed it after the application was filed does not render the application infructuous, as the application was maintainable at the time it was filed when the proceeds were still in the court’s custody.Checking relevance for Union of India VS SICOM Ltd. ...
Checking relevance for Nur Mahomed Peerbhoy and another VS Dinshaw Hormasji Motiwalla and another...
1922 0 Supreme(SC) 57 : Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides for the rateable distribution of sale proceeds in execution proceedings. In this case, the property was sold under a Court-sale on 25th April, 1913, following an attachment under Darkhast No. 120 of 1912. The sale proceeds became distributable under Section 73 once the purchase-money was paid by the second defendant (Nur Mahomed Purhai Damji), who purchased the property for Rs. 11,500. The proceeds were then assets available for rateable distribution among decree-holders entitled to such distribution. The judgment debtor was Adam Haji Jacob, and the decree-holder in the execution proceeding was the second decree-holder who applied for the sale. The plaintiff (Dinshaw Hormasji Motiwalla) had no locus standi to intervene in the sale proceedings, as he was not a decree-holder in the execution against the judgment debtor. The auction sale proceeds were thus subject to rateable distribution under Section 73, and the balance sale proceeds were distributable to those entitled under the law.Checking relevance for Subaida Ebrahim W/O Ibrahim VS Moosa C. , S/O Mohiyudheen...
2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 338 : Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 mandates that when multiple decree holders have applied for execution of decrees against the same judgment-debtor and have not obtained satisfaction, the proceeds from the sale of assets must be rateably distributed among them after deducting realization costs. This applies even if the sale is confined to a portion of the property, as the order for rateable distribution remains in force unless explicitly modified. A decree holder may bid for or purchase property only with the court''''s permission (Order XXI, Rule 72), and upon such purchase, the decree amount may be set off against the sale price. However, if the sale is conducted without notice to other decree holders who are entitled to rateable distribution, and the court grants permission to bid and set off without notice, it constitutes irregularity and fraud, resulting in substantial injury to other decree holders. The balance sale proceeds, after set-off, must be deposited and are subject to distribution as per Section 73. A decree holder who has not been given notice of the auction and set-off process has locus standi to challenge the sale under Order XXI, Rule 90, especially when the order for rateable distribution is still in effect. The court may set aside the sale if such irregularities are found, even if the sale was otherwise properly published, because the failure to notify other decree holders of the set-off process deprives them of their right to participate in the distribution. The exclusion of part of the property (e.g., 11 cents) from the sale does not nullify the rateable distribution order, which continues to apply to the portion sold. The appellant’s deposit of balance sale proceeds (Rs.2,85,433/-) on 14.02.2020 was not acknowledged by the Execution Court, which contributed to the decision to set aside the sale. Thus, the 1st respondent, as a decree holder, had locus standi to intervene and challenge the sale, and the auction proceeds were subject to rateable distribution despite the partial sale.Checking relevance for Vijaya Marketing Associates, Represented By Its Managing Director P. K. Jose VS Southern Blomoulders, Represented By Its Managing Partner N. Suresh Babu, S/o. Unnikrishanan...
2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 899 : Section 73 of the CPC enables rateable distribution of sale proceeds among different decree holders who have obtained decrees against the same judgment debtor, provided the decrees were obtained and execution proceedings initiated before receipt of the assets. However, in this case, the decree holders in all 7 Execution Petitions were sister concerns, authorized the same person to represent them in the auction, and voluntarily accepted the sale price of Rs.1,56,95,390/- as full satisfaction of their combined decree debts (amounting to Rs.2,15,24,391/-), thereby abandoning their claim for the balance sale proceeds. The court held that since the decree holders themselves agreed to this arrangement and no substantial injury was caused to the judgment debtors, rateable distribution was not required. The judgment debtors had no locus standi to object to the consolidation of decree amounts or the sale, as they were benefited by the full satisfaction of the debts. The auction sale proceeds were not subject to rateable distribution because the decree holders collectively waived their right to claim the balance, and no material irregularity or fraud was established. The court also emphasized that intervention by a judgment debtor to set aside a sale under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC requires proof of material irregularity or fraud causing substantial injury, which was not demonstrated here.
