Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 289 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Chand Rani vs Kamal Rani on 18 December, 1992

A.K. Lakshmipathy (Died) By Lr And Ors. vs Rai Saheb Pannalal Hiralal Lahoti ... on 23 February, 2005

38. As observed by the Supreme Court in Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani case (supra) (Paragraphs 24, 26 and 27 of AIR), when the final notice by way of ultimatum is given by the vendors, the best thing the vendees could have done is just pay the amount to the vendors and agitate the matter further. Having failed to do so, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to throw the blame on the vendors. When the plaintiffs could go on issuing notice after notice to the vendors, probably to project that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, nothing prevented them to adhere to the solemn agreement between first plaintiff and second first defendant, especially when P.Ws.1 and 3 admit that they entered into agreement after fully satisfying with the title of first defendant to the property. Insofar as the applicability of Endowment Act is concerned, D.W.I clarified that it is only West Bengal Law that would apply under which no permission is required.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 36 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Inti Veera Veni, W/O. Kasi ... vs Smt. Mahadasa Vara Lakshmi, Wife Of ... on 3 December, 2004

In Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani (supra) as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, the facts therein are almost similar to the facts on hand. There were exchange of notices between vendor and vendee with regard to payment of second instalment of sale consideration. After receiving notice/notices, the vendee did not pay the amount. What is the inference to be drawn from those circumstances was observed by the Supreme Court as under.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ceean International Private Limited ... vs Ashok Surana And Anr. on 27 August, 2002

In Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani, , the Apex Court had held that it is a well-accepted principle that in case of the sale of immovable property, time is never regarded as essence of contract. In fact, there is a presumption against time being the essence of contract. Under the law of equity, which governs the rights of the parties in the case of specific performance of contract to sell of real estate, law looks not at the letter but at the substance of the agreement. It is to be ascertained whether the terms of the contract named a specific time for completion of the transaction. In substance whether it is intended that it is to be complete within a reasonable time. But such intention to make time the essence of contract must be expressed in unequivocal language. If expressed in writing, the language must be unmistakable. It may also be inferred from the nature of property agreed to be sold, conduct of the parties and the surrounding circumstances at or before the contract. Specific performance of a contract will ordinarily be granted, notwithstanding default in carrying out the contract within the specified period, if having regard to the express stipulation of the parties, nature of the property and the surrounding circumstances, it is not inequitable to grant the relief. If the contract relates to a sale of immovable property, it would normally be presumed that time was not essence of contract.
Calcutta High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 10 - D K Seth - Full Document

S. Maruthai And Another vs Gokuldoss Dharam Doss And Four Others on 5 November, 1999

The learned Judges referred to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani, and understood it stating that as the purchaser in that case insisted on obtaining an income tax clearance certificate for making payment of balance sale consideration, the Supreme Court pointed out that since such a condition was not covered by the contract the purchaser cannot claim the equitable relief. The sum and substance of the three judgments referred to above in the context of willingness on the part of the transferee under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is that willingness on the part of the transferee must be complete, wholesome and unconditional. In this case the learned Senior Counsel arguing for the buyer would contend that express consent of the vendors is necessary. This is not a requirement covered under the contract. Likewise the requirement of getting a 'no objection certificate' under the Central Act 34 of 1976 was not a requirement in the contract as on the date of the contract the Act was not in force at all. Under the Central Act 34 of 1976 there is no total prohibition of transfer. Section 25 of that Act only contemplated an advance notice in writing before the intended transfer. Under the Tamil Nadu Act, there is a total prohibition of transfer. However it may be noted here that the buyer never placed his case at any stage when the suits were pending before the trial Court under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (C&R) Act.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

D.Chitra vs S.Subramaniam

31. The Bench had observed that there was a total inaction on the part of the plaintiff in that case for over 2 ½ years which was in clear violation of the terms of the agreement which required him to pay the balance sale consideration and demand execution of the sale deed within a period of six months. The Bench observed that the delay had brought about the situation where it would become inequitable to grant the relief of Specific Performance to the plaintiff.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

V.Ramalingam vs K.S.Sundaram

49.Both the decisions referred to by Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, did not consider the scope of Section 73 or 74 of the Contract Act. While the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chand Rani Vs. Kamal Rani was concerned with the issue as to whether the time is the essence of contract for sale of immovable property, in Deshraj -Vs- Rohtash Singh, the Hon'ble supreme Court was concerned with the grant of refund of advance in the absence of a prayer in terms of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act. The question of refund of earnest money or the penal nature of the clause providing for the forfeiture of money was not gone into by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in both those cases.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

Gaddipati Divija vs Pathuri Samrajyam on 18 April, 2023

In this context, this Court in Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani [Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani, (1993) 1 SCC 519] , held as under : (SCC p. 528, para 25) “25. From an analysis of the above case law it is clear that in the case of sale of immovable property there is no presumption as to time being the essence of the contract. Even if it is not of the essence of the contract 21 the court may infer that it is to be performed in a reasonable time if the conditions are evident:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - K Murari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next