Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 103 (2.36 seconds)
Documents citing Gobind Ram vs Gian Chand on 27 September, 2000

Nirmala Anand Appellant vs Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... on 10 May, 2002

Reference has also been made above to a decision of this Court in Gobind Ram vs. Gian Chand (supra) wherein, in order to mitigate the hardship resulting to the vendor due to lapse of time and escalation of prices of urban property, further compensatory amount was ordered to be paid, even though in that case the trial court granted a decree for specific performance for consideration recited in the document and the balance of consideration was also deposited by the purchaser in full, thereon.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 161 - D Raju - Full Document

Express Towers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Mohan Singh And Ors. on 24 July, 2014

Reference has also been made above to a decision of this Court in Gobind Ram v. Gian Chand [(2000) 7 SCC 548] wherein, in order to mitigate the hardship resulting to the vendor due to lapse of time and escalation of prices of urban property, further compensatory amount was ordered to be paid, even though in that case the trial court granted a decree for specific performance for consideration recited in the document and the balance of consideration was also deposited by the purchaser in full, thereon."
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - G P Mittal - Full Document

Unknown vs S.Ravichandran on 30 March, 2012

(iii)GOBIND RAM VS. GIAN CHAND [2000 (7) SCC 548] In this case, the appellant agreed to sell the suit property at Delhi for Rs.16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand only). He wriggled out of contract. The suit filed by the respondent for specific performance was decreed by the Trial Court. While confirming the judgment of the Trial Court, the High Court directed the respondent to pay a further sum of Rupees One Lakh to the appellant. On further appeal, the Apex Court confirmed the order of the High Court, but directed to pay a further sum of Rupees Three Lakhs. This case is also not relating to development agreement. Thus, this case is of no use to the plaintiff.
Madras High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - D Hariparanthaman - Full Document

M.Krishnan vs C.Jawahar on 10 May, 2023

(iv) As observed earlier, both the Courts below have exercised their discretion to grant the relief of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff and they have been guided by the principles of justice, equity and good conscience and therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant in the case of Gobind Ram Vs. Gian Chand reported in (2000) 7 SCC 548 has no bearing to the facts of the instant case.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document

M.Krishnan vs C.Jawahar on 10 May, 2023

(iv) As observed earlier, both the Courts below have exercised their discretion to grant the relief of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff and they have been guided by the principles of justice, equity and good conscience and therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant in the case of Gobind Ram Vs. Gian Chand reported in (2000) 7 SCC 548 has no bearing to the facts of the instant case.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document

Shantabai W/O Sidaraya Harakari vs Rajendra Govind Daivdnya on 29 February, 2024

19. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gobind Ram vs. Gian Chand reported in 2000 (4) KCCR 2737, lays down that in order to render the justice, an additional sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was ordered to be paid by the purchaser. Further in the recent judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also noticed this aspect and certain reliefs were granted.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr B S Prabhakar vs D Rangappa Alias Puttanna on 12 November, 2021

26. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in GOBIND RAM VS. GIAN CHAND reported in (2000) 7 SCC 548 wherein, the Apex Court also discussed with regard to escalation of real estate prices, no ground to deny specific relief and specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property held, may be granted where vendor attempts to wriggle out of the contract only because of escalation of real estate prices.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

Sri.C.Shiva Shankar vs Smt.Y.Amudha on 28 July, 2022

29. As the defendant and her husband are having worldly knowledge, this court is of firm opinion that, no reason to deny the relief of specific performance of contract in favour of the plaintiff. However, the court is bound to look into the other compelling circumstances. As the suit schedule property is within the limits of BBMP, there are reasons to believe that, the value of the suit schedule property has been increased multiple times than the one referred in the Sale Agreement. Looking to the pathetic condition of the defendant and her family, the court is required to look into the point of equity. Otherwise, it would give scope for unjust enrichment in favour of plaintiff. At this stage, I have gone through the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2000 SC 3106; Gobind Ram v. Gian Chand. In the said decision, it was held as under:
Bangalore District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri.C.Shiva Shankar vs Smt.K.Savitri on 28 July, 2022

29. As the defendant and her husband are having worldly knowledge, this court is of firm opinion that, no reason to deny the relief of specific performance of contract in favour of the plaintiff. However, the court is bound to look into the other compelling circumstances. As the suit schedule property is within the limits of BBMP, there are reasons to believe that, the value of the suit schedule property has been increased multiple times than the one referred in the Sale Agreement. Looking to the pathetic condition of the defendant and her family, the court is required to look into the point of equity. Otherwise, it would give scope for unjust enrichment in favour of plaintiff. At this stage, I have gone through the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2000 SC 3106; Gobind Ram v. Gian Chand. In the said decision, it was held as under:
Bangalore District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Varam Chinna Venkatesulu vs Indian Financial Association on 27 September, 2022

17. Further, since long time had elapsed between the date of agreement of sale and the date of decree, and the value of the property increases by manifold by now, keeping in view the fact that the defendants have in their possession both property and the advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, this Court directs reasonable term of payment of interest on the balance of sale consideration. This view is fortified by a decision of this Court in Pydi Ramana @ Ramulu v. Devarasetty Hanumatha Rao3, wherein under similar circumstances, while granting specific performance, this Court directed the plaintiff to pay twice the amount of sale consideration stipulated the agreement, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gobind Ram v. Gian Chand 4 and also referring to the divergent views taken in Nirmalaanand v. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd. and others5.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next