Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 86

6.11. Bombay view.-

According to Bombay view,1 for example, the terminus a quo for making an application under section 3 arises after an application requesting the Court to direct a sale is made under section 2. The confirmation of the sale would be the last point of time before which an application could be made under section 3. However, the Court must be circumspect in granting the request under section 3, because once a sale is ordered, equities arise in favour of third parties. It has also been pointed out in Calcutta2 that section 3 does not contain any restrictive words such as "before the Court makes an order under section 2".

1. Teheribhal Abdulalli v. Nagindas Gokuldas Saraf, AIR 1979 Born 41 (43), para. 12 (February).

2. Nitish Chandra v. Promod Kumar, AIR 1953 Cal 18.

The Partition Act, 1893 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys