Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Prabha Arora & Anr vs Brij Mohini Anand & Ors on 31 October, 2007

Nuziveedu Swathi Coastal Consortium vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 June, 2018

In the case of PRABHA ARORA AND ANOTHER v. BRIJ MOHINI ANAND AND OTHERS14, the issue that fell consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court was with regard to an alteration/modification of the terms of contract and the Apex Court held that the doctrine of fairness cannot be invoked to amend, alter or vary the express terms of the contract between the parties and that the tender terms are contractual and it is the privilege of the Government which invites its tenders and the Courts do not have the jurisdiction to judge on as to how the tender terms to be framed. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court would not render any assistance to the case of the respondents in the absence of such contingencies of said nature in the present case.
Telangana High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Hcccppl Jv vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 June, 2018

In the case of PRABHA ARORA AND ANOTHER v. BRIJ MOHINI ANAND AND OTHERS14, the issue that fell consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court was with regard to an alteration/modification of the terms of contract and the Apex Court held that the doctrine of fairness cannot be invoked to amend, alter or vary the express terms of the contract between the parties and that the tender terms are contractual and it is the privilege of the Government which invites its tenders and the Courts do not have the jurisdiction to judge on as to how the tender terms to be framed. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court would not render any assistance to the case of the respondents in the absence of such contingencies of said nature in the present case.
Telangana High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Sabir Sew And Prasad vs State Of Ap on 5 June, 2018

In the case of PRABHA ARORA AND ANOTHER v. BRIJ MOHINI ANAND AND OTHERS14, the issue that fell consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court was with regard to an alteration/modification of the terms of contract and the Apex Court held that the doctrine of fairness cannot be invoked to amend, alter or vary the express terms of the contract between the parties and that the tender terms are contractual and it is the privilege of the Government which invites its tenders and the Courts do not have the jurisdiction to judge on as to how the tender terms to be framed. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court would not render any assistance to the case of the respondents in the absence of such contingencies of said nature in the present case.
Telangana High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.B. Civil First Appeal No.152/199 vs . on 28 October, 2014

In M.M. Quasim (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if a landlord losses his interest in entirety in the demised premises during the pendency of appeal, he would not be entitled to maintain or continue the action after cessation or extinguishment of his interest in the building and the appellate court is competent to take notice of the subsequent event, the said judgment has apparently no application except for the 10 principle that subsequent events can be taken note of; similarly in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu (supra) also the principle of taking into consideration subsequent events was laid down, however, in the said case the issue pertained to legal disability, which has no applicability to the present case; the judgment in the case of Seshambal (supra) deals with a case where the person whose requirement was pleaded had died and requirement of his family was not pleaded; in the case of Prabha Arora (supra) in view of the fact that the suit property had been placed in a Trust and the plaintiff as trustee could not use the property, the Court came to the conclusion that no decree could be passed; in case of Kedar Nath Agrawal (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court despite death of the original plaintiff held that legal representatives can substitute their need and in the case of Rakesh Gupta (supra) this Court while deciding a revision petition seeking amendment at the first appellate stage held that the ground for eviction is not only required to be in existence at the time of filing of the suit, but also must continue to exist until decree is executed or tenant is actually evicted.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A Bhansali - Full Document

(O&M;) M/S Oberoi Timber Traders vs Narbir Singh Etc on 31 August, 2018

It was also contended that case law on the point of bona fide necessity to be seen at the time of filing, is no longer a good law, in view of the ratio decidendi culled out by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabha Arora and another Vs. Brij Mohini Anand and others 2007 (2) RCR 600 as the subsequent events can always be looked into for adjudication of the controversy.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - A Rawal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next