Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 60 (2.47 seconds)
Documents citing G.T. Girish vs Y Subba Raju (D) By Lrs on 18 January, 2022

Kokilaben Shaileshkumar Shah vs Kantilal Purshottamdas Patel (Since ... on 20 March, 2026

9.2 It is next submitted that for a valid contract the requirements namely lawful consideration, lawful object and not expressly declared void are crucial. If invalidity is attached, the transaction is deemed to be declared as void. Reference is made to the judgment in the case of G.T. Girish vs. Y Subba Raju and Anr. (supra) . It is submitted that if the agreement is hit by law no other things are required to be seen. The judgments cited of passing the conditional decree, is distinguished on the ground that the agreement is not hit but, the ultimate transaction solicited by enforcement of agreement might be hit, if no permission is taken. Therefore, bar of section 63 of the Tenancy Act, 1948 is rightly answered in favour of the defendants.
Gujarat High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - S K Vishen - Full Document

Mr.Mohammed Mahmood And Another vs Mr.Syed Anwar Mustafa And 4 Others on 25 March, 2022

16.5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in G.T. Girish v. Y. Subba Raju (Died) by L.Rs., and another [Civil Appeal Nos.380 and 381 of 2022, dated 18.01.2022] held that the pleas of bonafide purchaser or lack of notice are not defences available to the purchaser against the doctrine of lis pendens. Thus, the appellants cannot take the above pleas that the judgments were not registered which could have been a notice to them and that they were bonafide purchasers, to subvert the rights of the 1st respondent. There is no procedure of registering
Telangana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Anita G Hawa vs Navtej Singh Bains on 25 August, 2022

(d) The defendant proved that she served first legal notice on 13.07.1998 Ex.P23, which was duly received by GPA-father of the plaintiff, in which it was stated that the defendant has got NOC from the Estate Office, Chandigarh on 21.04.19998, but the plaintiff failed to sign Form No.37-I. Therefore, the plaintiff was given one week time to do the needful for getting the agreement to sell completed, failing which the same will be cancelled. In cross- examination, PW3 Harmail Singh Bains, GPA-father of the plaintiff admitted having received this notice. Another notice 38 of 42 ::: Downloaded on - 26-08-2022 08:51:08 ::: RSA-1499 & 4500-2013 -39- Ex.P24 was served upon the plaintiff on 27.07.1998 through DW2 Ravinder Krishan, Advocate, vide which the agreement to sell was cancelled, as the plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract, as noticed above. Prior to filing of the present suit, which was instituted on 30.07.1998, the defendant cancelled the agreement to sell, therefore, in view of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.S. Sikandar's case (supra), G.T. Girish's case (supra), Mohinder Kaur's case (supra) and Kalawati (D) through LRs's case (supra), the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell was not maintainable, as the plaintiff never sought a declaration that cancellation of agreement to sell be also set aside. Accordingly, question of law No.5 is also answered in favour of the appellant-defendant.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A S Sangwan - Full Document

The Himalaya Wellness Company, ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 19 October, 2022

This Court, in an appeal arising from an action for specific performance, in G.T.Girish v. Y. Subba Raju (D) by L. Rs & Ors36, held that giving the relief would imply doing something prohibited by law (bar against conveyance, for a specific period) - it had the effect of defeating the provisions of the law. It was held that:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next