Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Hasam Nurani Malak vs Mohansingh And Anr. on 3 September, 1973

Shri Parasharam Sakharam Dhumal And Anr vs Shri Shamrao Mahadeo Dhumal (Decd) Thr ... on 8 June, 2018

In the Judgment of this Court in the case of Hasam Nurani Malak Vs. Mohansingh and Anr. (Supra) , the Division Bench was pleased to reproduce the observations of the Privy Council in the case of Jamshed Vs. Bruiorii, AIR 1915 PC 83, and held that, 18/22 SA-37-93.doc ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:32:36 ::: "There is distinction between a "contract of sale of immovable property" and a "contract of re-sale or re- conveyance of immovable property". An Agreement to re-convey property, after the vendor transferred it by sale to the vendee, is essentially in the nature of, according to the strict requirements of 'Agreement of Re-conveyance' and hence, it has to be performed within the stipulated period."
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gowrammal Alias Gowri vs V. Pechimuthu on 29 January, 1996

In Hasam Nurani Malak v. Mohansingh , their Lordships were following the decision reported in Ardeshir v. Flora Sassoon 55 M.L.J. 528 : A.I.R. 1928 P.C. 208 : 11 I.C. 413 : L.R. 55 I.A. 360, wherein it was stated that in a case where the plaintiff claims specific performance of a contract of sale he must allege, and if the fact was traversed, he is required to prove a continuous readiness and willingness from the date of the contract to the time of the hearing, to perform the contract on his part and the failure to make good that averment brings with it, inevitable dismissal of the suit. The readiness and willingness to perform the contract must be with reference to the true nature of the contract found between the parties and not readiness and willingness to perform the contract as the plaintiff understood it to be. Their Lordships further discussed the evidence in that case and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff therein wanted to get a settlement of the accounts of the defendant and had expressed their readiness only to pay the balance amount. Therefore, the court held that in view of the said conduct on the part of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not entitled to get specific performance.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vijaya Bank vs Maker Development Services Pvt. ... on 14 March, 2001

28. The next contention of the learned c6unsel for the appellant is that by the modification of the terms of Clause 22 of the Agreement of licence by the letter dated 27th June, 1989 if on the expiry of the leave and licence any amount of principal or interest was outstanding and unpaid, then, the respondent was not entitled to call upon the appellant to give possession and would not militate against the appellant's continued possession despite the agreement having come to an end. It is urged that it was agreed between the parties that, in such a situation, the appellant would continue to occupy the premises until the entire loan and interest was repaid. An argument is founded on this to contend that the privilege or bargain of exercising the option is a unilateral bargain or privilege which was contingent on the entire loan amount and interest beingrepaid; that since it was a unilateral bargain /privilege, it is required to be construed strictly to ensure that the conditions precedent were strictly complied with. Reference is made to United Dominions Trust (Commercial) Ltd. v. Eagle Aircraft Services Ltd.,: The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Mysore, v. Vijayaba, Dowager Maharani Saheb, Bhavanagar and Ors.,; Hasam Nurani Malak v. Mohansingh and Anr., and Caltex (India) Ltd., v. Bhagwan Devi Marodia, as supporting this proposition. In our view, this argument does not advance the appellant's case any further. We are sitting in appeal only against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to entertain the challenge to the Award under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. The learned Judge has taken the view, and rightly in our view, that this is not a challenge open to the petitioner under Section 34. The correctness or otherwise of the findings made by the Arbitrator in the Award is not liable to be challenged under Section 34. This contention also therefore, fails.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Applicants: 1. Smt.Pushpa W/O Aidan ... vs Respondent: Purushottam Champalalji ... on 15 February, 2010

12. Mr.Deshpande submits that even if for the sake of arguments it is to be considered that the sale-deed in favour of applicant no.3 is mortgage by conditional sale it must satisfy the requirement of Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, in particular, the proviso thereto. As per the proviso, no such transaction shall be ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:37:03 ::: 12 deemed to be a mortgage, unless the condition is embodied in the document which effects or purports to effect the sale. Relying upon decision of this court in Hasan Nurani Malak .vs. Mohansingh and another reported in 1974 Mh.L.J. Page 120, Mr.Deshpande submits that there cannot be any contemporaneous document agreeing to reconvey the property on payment of consideration with interest and in such case the transaction cannot amount to mortgage by conditional sale. Mr.Chandurkar submits in reply that in order to find out whether the condition is so embodied in the document, one must read the document which is not permissible at this stage. Even if the document is not read at this stage, what is important is a pleading in the plaint that the document contains such a condition. In the absence of the pleading the question of verifying the claim by looking into the contents of the document does not arise. In any case, as already observed above it is not the case of the respondent that the sale-
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - R P Sondurbaldota - Full Document

A. N. Subbanna vs A. Manjunath on 23 July, 2019

(iii) proviso to Sec.58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 shuts out an enquiry as to whether a sale with a stipulation to reconvey the property is in fact a mortgage when such stipulation is not embodied in the same document which comprises the transaction in question; if the sale and agreement to reconvey are embodied in separate documents, then the transaction cannot amount to mortgage, whether or not the documents are executed contemporaneously as held by this Court in the case of AMIR BEE vs. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, AIR 1980 KARNATAKA 154 and by the Bombay High Court in the case of HASAM NURANI MALAK vs. MOHANSINGH, AIR 1974 BOM 136.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - K S Dixit - Full Document
1