Martin vs Devassy on 19 December, 2014
The
attention of the learned Single Judge was not invited to the
decisions of the Apex Court in Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. v. Union
Bank of India (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 125 (3.52 seconds)Documents citing
Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd vs Union Bank Of India on 11 March, 2005
Sh. Ajit Kar vs Sh. Ram Pratap on 26 March, 2015
12.I have carefully gone through the aforesaid judgments. It would
be pertinent at this stage to reproduce para no. 22 of the
judgment in Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India
(supra) which reads as follows:
Roop Ram And 4 Others vs Smt. Geeta Rani And 3 Others on 6 October, 2017
In Vithalbhai (supra), while dealing with the premature filing of a suit, a two-Judge Bench of this Court, after referring to a number of decisions of various High Courts and this Court, came to hold as follows:-
Unknown vs Union Bank Of India). Learned Counsel ... on 21 April, 2010
22. Now, it is appropriate to consider the decision of the Supreme Court, relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant-second defendant reported in 2005 (2) CTC 582 (SC) (Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Union Bank of India), in which the Supreme Court held as follows:
Ramesh Chander Sharma vs Poonam Goyal And Anr on 21 December, 2018
15 of 20
::: Downloaded on - 18-03-2019 04:16:48 :::
RSA No.985 of 2011(O&M) 16
[24]. The filing of suit on 20.03.2006 even before grant of
licence on 13.04.2007 was pre-mature and ratio of Vithalbhai
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India's case (supra) would not be
attracted as the performance of the agreement was not only
depended upon obligation of the defendants, but also on the
developer as well as State of Haryana who were not impleaded
as party defendants in the suit. The contingencies could not have
been cured by the defendants in the absence of performing
parties to the transaction. Even Narender Solanki, District Town
Planner while appearing as PW 2 has admitted that the
respondents were granted permission for setting up residential
colony on 13.04.2007 (Ex.P6). Vide letter of intent (Ex.P7),
respondents were only called upon to fulfill certain conditions
before issuance of licence. The commencement of stipulated
period of four months as propounded by the plaintiff if believed,
then after the grant of licence, nothing would have been left to
further wait for formal launch of the colony and in such
eventuality, the clause would have rendered meaningless and
without any objectivity. There cannot be any dispute with regard
to proposition as held in the cited judgments by the appellant, but
no such factors are involved in the present case as bilateral
agreement between the parties was only for four months and
after expiry thereof in the absence of any licence, the only
remedy available with the plaintiff was to get his earnest money
16 of 20
::: Downloaded on - 18-03-2019 04:16:48 :::
RSA No.985 of 2011(O&M) 17
back without interest if the same was to be paid within 15 days
and with interest thereafter.
Smt. T.H. Thimmarajamma vs Sri G.C. Lakshminarayana Swamy on 28 April, 2026
20. Following the declaration of law made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, as there is no
provision in the Specific Relief Act requiring the plaintiff
claiming the relief of specific performance to wait for
expiry of the due date for performance of the agreement
in a situation where the defendant may have made its
intention clear by not replying to the legal notice at Ex.P8,
I am of the view that, the contentions raised by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent is to
be accepted. It is well settled principle in law that the
J. Sinu Simon vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal on 4 October, 2007
12. (a) In the decision reported in (2005) 4 SCC 315 (Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. v. Union Bank of India), the Supreme Court in paragraph 22 held as follows,
"22. We may now briefly sum up the correct position of law which is as follows:
Babitha Devi vs Rajendra Kumar on 8 January, 2025
11. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India reported in (2005) 4 SCC 315 held as
follows:
Umed Singh vs Satbir Singh on 24 April, 2015
Hence in the facts of the present case, once the
defendant has admitted that he wants to sell the land at a higher
price at a Rs. 10,00,000/- per acre, in view of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Vithalbhai's case (supra), it gave a cause of
action to the plaintiff to file a suit on 2.8.2006 before the date fixed for
the execution of the agreement. Since the execution of the
agreement and payments made were duly proved, this finding of fact
does not require any interference in the regular second appeal. The
suit was rightly held not premature.
N. Sathish Kumar vs Jain on 6 May, 1990
In Vithalbhai (P) Ltd., vs. Union Bank of India [2005
(4) SCC 315] the Honourable Apex Court has held that suit is not to
be necessarily dismissed for having been filed prematurely.