Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.32 seconds)
Documents citing M.M.S.Investments, Madurai And Ors vs V. Veerappan And Ors on 11 April, 2007

Smt.Sudha W/O Lalitkumar Giri vs M/S Rasshi Farms on 23 August, 2022

In the light of the ratio of the larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Awadh's case, the contention that the defence under Section 16(c) is not open to defendants and the judgment in M.M.S Investments' case has to be followed cannot be accepted. The trial Court failed to properly appreciate the pleadings, evidence, law and the precedents on compliance of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, the finding that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform its part of the contract is unsustainable.
Karnataka High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

B Poornachandra Tejasvi vs Smt Shanthamma on 27 December, 2022

38. The First Appellate Court placed reliance on the decision in the case of M.M.S. INVESTMENTS, MADURAI AND OTHERS vs. V.VEERAPPAN AND OTHERS4. The facts and circumstances in the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court is that a suit for specific performance of the contract was decreed by the trial Court and after passing such decree, the defendants through their power of attorney holder sold large extent of properties including the subject-matter of the suit in 4 (2007) 9 SCC 660 30 favour of a third party who are the appellants before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The appellants being the subsequent purchasers after passing of the decree, filed application before the High Court seeking to implead themselves as appellants in the appeal that was preferred by the original defendants. The High Court on considering rival submissions held that there is no bar for the appellants to raise any issue on merits of the appeal for consideration except the defence of readiness and willingness as provided under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Accordingly, the CMP filed by the subsequent purchasers was dismissed. The same was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Under such circumstances, Hon'ble Apex Court held in Paragraph No.6 as under:
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanjeevappa vs Smt Nagamma on 21 April, 2023

In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon the judgment in B. VIJAYA BHARATHI VS. P. SAVITRI AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 11 SCC 761 and would vehemently contend that this judgment is aptly applicable to the facts of the case on hand and brought 14 to notice of this Court Para Nos.12 and 13 and contend that, in Para No.13, the Apex Court has discussed with regard to the judgment in M.M.S. INVESTMENTS VS. V. VEERAPPAN and also observed that, there would be no bar for the appellant to raise any issue on merits of the appeal on the facts of that case except the defence of readiness and willingness as provided under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document
1   2 Next