Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 252 (2.71 seconds)
Documents citing Hungerford Investment Trust Limited ... vs Haridas Mundhra & Others on 9 March, 1972

Thyssen Stahlunion Gmbh Etc vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd on 7 October, 1999

Various decisions have been cited before us to show as to what is a mere right and what is right accrued or acquired. We have to examine this question with reference to the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act if it could be said that when the arbitral proceedings have commenced under the old Act, a party has acquired a right to have the award given thereafter enforced under the old Act. The question that arises for consideration is if a right has accrued to the party or it is merely an inchoate right. The three cases referred to, namely, Abbott v. The Minister for Lands, (1895) AC 425 PC; Hungerfort Investment Trust Ltd. v. Haridas Mundhra & Ors., [1972] 3 SCR 690 and AC, Bhatia & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., [1995] 1 SCC 104 show that something more is required for vested right to accrue. Right did exist but then nothing was done to show that any act was done or advantage taken of the enactment under which the right existed till it was repealed. An Act gave the right and the new Act which repealed the old Act took away that right. Mere right to take advantage of the provision of an Act is not a right accrued.
Supreme Court of India Cites 100 - Cited by 210 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

M/S. Dosti Corportion vs Sea Flama Co-Operative Housing Society ... on 7 April, 2016

Insofar as judgment of Supreme Court in case of Hundgerford Investment Trust Limited (In voluntary Liquidation) vs. Haridas Mundhra and others, (1972) 3 SCC 684 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the said judgment deals with the approach of the court in case of ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2016 00:01:34 ::: kvm 21 AO117.16 rescission of a contract and is not applicable to the facts of this case.
Bombay High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 1 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Standard Industries Limited vs See Flama Co-Operative Housing Society ... on 7 April, 2016

Insofar as the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Hungerford Investment Trust Limited (supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the defendant no.1 is concerned, the Supreme Court has considered the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and has dealt with the approach of the Court in case of recession of contract. In my view, the said judgment of the Supreme Court thus does not apply to the facts of this case at all.
Bombay High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Bhagwandas Auto Finance Ltd. & Ors vs Citicorp Finance (India) Limited on 22 April, 2009

By relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. S. B. P. and Co. vs. M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Anr. (supra), Mr. Banerjee tried to convince us that the allegation of forgery in the matter of execution of the agreement between parties containing an arbitration clause now should be decided by the Arbitrator and not by the Civil Court and thus, we should restrain the appellant from filing a civil suit.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Sri Sabyasachi Ghosh vs Smt. Pushparani Das on 1 October, 2019

In the case of Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. V. Haridas Mundhra it has been held that when the court passes the decree for specific performance, the contract between the parties is not extinguished. That the decree for specific performance is in the nature of preliminary decree and the suit is deemed to be pending even after the decree. Hence, the court retains control over the entire matter even after the decree. Since the court retains control over the matter, despite the decree, it is open to the court to order rescission of the agreement, when it is found that the decree-holder is not ready and willing to abide by his obligations under the decree."
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - B Basu - Full Document

Piyare Lal Khanna vs The Financial Commissioner on 3 October, 1972

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the refusal of the Division Bench to entertain the second writ petition can be referred only to the principle of res judicata and. he says, an order dismissing a writ petition on the ground of res judicata would be an order under Article 133 (1) of the Constitution. I am unable to agree upon the facts of the present case. There was never any decision on the merits here. Besides, as the Calcutta High Court, in H. I. Trust Ltd. v. Haridas Mundhra 75 Cal WN 517 -= (AIR 1971 Cal 182) has observed:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Atlanta Infra Assets Limited vs National Highways Authority Of India on 26 May, 2026

58. After identifying that the SA contained no express stipulation as to the time limit, the AT returned its findings in paragraph No. 61 by applying governing legal principles applicable in such a factual scenario. The AT proceeded to observe that the use of phrase "as and when land becomes available" does not permit an infinite and endless postponement of performance. The AT relied on Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. (Supra) to support its findings that in absence of any prescribed time for performance of an obligation, the law implies determination of a reasonable time which is to be ascertained from the Digitally Signed By:MAYANK Signing Date:26.05.2026 O.M.P. (COMM) 152/2022 & O.M.P. (COMM) 243/2022 Page 18 of 46 20:30:27 relevant facts and circumstances. From a perusal of the paragraph No. 61 it is also clear that the stipulation of 12 months period in the CA was not discarded altogether but the same was expressly treated as a relevant clue for determining reasonableness under the altered contractual agreement. In this backdrop, I am of this view that the AT treated this 12 month period as a baseline indicator while interpreting the reasonable period with the help of other relevant facts and circumstances.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next