Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Kamarbai And Ors. vs Badrinarayan And Anr. on 27 July, 1976

Pravin S/O Jethalal Kamdar vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 26 April, 1995

In support of his plea that such an equitable relief should be refused to him, the learned counsel for the defendants has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Kamarbai Ahmed v. Badrinarayan, . Although the facts in the above case are not given in the above report, it appears from the last para in the head-noting in the said report that according to this Court it was difficult to hold in the facts of the said case that the agreement or the consideration for the saler deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant and which was challenged as void by him in the said case was future co-habitation. This Court further held in the said case that, even if, it was held that future co-habitation was incidental and consequential to the intimate relations which were established between the plaintiff and the defendant, the said consideration was immoral and, therefore, the Court would not assist the plaintiff by granting relief acting on the principie of the maxim 'in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis'. The ratio of the said case is thus distinguishable.
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Ausaf Ali vs Sh. Saleem Ahmad on 15 February, 2014

Further in Kamarbai & Ors. v. Badrinarayan & Anr. AIR 1977 Bombay 228, the Hon'ble High Court has held that , " the statutory recognition of the principle in the maximum 'pari delicto' is also to be found in S.84 of the Trusts Act, A plaintiff, in cases like the present one, is denied assistance on the ground that the Court would not assist him to benefit from his own immorality or fraud or illegality, either on the basis of the maximum 'he who seeks equity must do equity' or 'he who comes into equity must come with clean hands'; or on the basis of such doctrines like: (1) Courts do not aid a party to an illegal undertaking; or (2) that the law does not permit a party deliberately t put his property out of his control for an immoral purpose and then seek intervention of the Court to regain the same after the immoral purpose is executed or accomplished; or (3) where both parties are equally guilty law leaves the parties where it finds them and keeps itself comfortably aloof from the obligation to determine the rights as between the guilty parties; or (4) that a party who claims an equitable relief must come into court with clean hands; or (5) that the party could not be allowed to blow hot and cold; or (6) to let the mischief lie where Ausauf Ali Vs. Saleem Ahmed CS No. 107/14 11 it exists."
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1