Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing H.V. Rajan vs C.N. Gopal And Ors. on 9 August, 1974

Tavellen Amarjit Singh & Ors. vs General Marketing & Manufacturing Co. ... on 8 June, 1984

H.V. Rajan v. C.N. Gopal and Others Air 1961 Mysore 29 has no application either because the agreement in our case does not create a lease. It is a surrender of a lease. It is an agreement to lease a flat yet to be built. Therefore, by no implication can the suit be considered to be one for posses session when it was expressly said to be one for specific performance.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramesh Rajaram Patil vs The Additional Commissioner, ... on 7 July, 1994

23. Coming, then, (o the decision of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court in V.S. Gurav's case (1986 CTJ 182), it is seen that that Court had relied upon the earlier decisions of the Bombay Co-operative Tribunal, though there was one contrary decision of the same Tribunal in Digambar Eknath Mali v. Namdeorao Kashinath Patil case is one under Rule 58(1)(a), which is provision similar to the provision contained in the present Rules. But, it appears that the points which were raised before us in the context of the point that we are deciding, were neither raised nor considered by that Court. No arguments were advanced before us on the basis of the rulings, which were relied upon in support of the decision.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Ahmed Khan vs Mohamad Khasim Sab on 14 July, 1975

6. Mr. Byra Reddy relied on the decision in H. V. Rajan v. C. N. Gopal, 1960 Mys L.J 106 = (AIR 1961 Mys 29) wherein it has been held that under Section 8 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1951 no tenant can be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement or law to the contrary, excepting in accordance with the provisions of that Section or Section 7 (3) of the same Act and that a landlord who seeks to evict a tenant in possession, will have to apply to the court as defined in Section 2 (2) of the Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Jay Shree Tea & Industries Limited vs General Magnets Limited on 29 November, 2013

The Clause quoted above, would make a definite proposition, the parties agreed to have review of revision of rent with every 10 years interval. Last of such review was made in 1990 hence, the plaintiff wanted to have review in 2000. The defendant avoided on the plea of pendency of a suit that would have no bearing on the issue (at least not argued by Mr. Talukdar before us). Even if one of the parties would not agree to such revision or parties could not come to a conclusion on the exact enhancement the clause., in our view, could not be rendered nugatory on the plea of vagueness. It is the duty of the Court to give effect to an agreement by giving harmonious construction to the extent possible. The Clause above is not so absurd that would pre-empt the Court to interfere. Such interference cannot be termed as novation of the agreement. It is like the Court helping as a catalyst between the parties in getting a particular condition of the contract fulfilled. Both the parties before us placed reliance on H.V.Rajan (supra), the Division Bench of the Mysore High Court considered a Clause of in a Deed of Lease that would involve renewal on certain terms and conditions to be agreed. The lease was renewed. However, the increase could not be affected. The agreement therein provided as follows:
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A K Banerjee - Full Document

The Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development ... vs M/S.Pottem Brothers, Hyderabad Rep. By ... on 4 February, 2016

In cases where a defence of frustration is raised, what the Court has to consider is whether the circumstances pleaded did exist which could reasonably be considered as sufficient to hold that the parties are absolved from their obligations under the contract. (G.A. Galia Kotwala and Co. Ltd35). The relief is given by the Court on the ground of subsequent impossibility when it finds that the whole purpose or basis of a contract was frustrated by the intrusion or occurrence of an unexpected event or change of circumstances which was beyond what was contemplated by the parties at the time when they entered into the agreement. When such an event or change of circumstance occurs, which is so fundamental as to be regarded by law as striking at the root of the contract as a whole, it is the Court which can pronounce the contract to be frustrated and at an end. (Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co., ; H.V. Rajan v. C.N. Gopal ).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 58 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next