Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 273 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Lourdu Mari David And Ors vs Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy And Ors on 9 August, 1996

Ram Kumar And Ors. vs Rattan Parkash And Ors. on 21 February, 2006

20. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary and the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so ; the discretion of the Court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a Court of appeal. Performance of the contract involving some hardship on the defendant which he did not foresee while non-performance involving no such hardship on the plaintiff, is one of the circumstances in which the Court may properly exercise discretion not to decree specific performance. The doctrine of comparative hardship has been thus statutorily recognised in India. However, mere inadequacy of consideration or the mere fact that the contract is onerous to the defendant or improvident in its nature, shall not constitute an unfair advantage to the plaintiff over the defendant or unforeseeable hardship on the defendant. The principle under lying Section 20 has been summed up by this Court in Lourdu Mari David v. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy (supra), by stating that the decree for specific performance is in the discretion of the Court but the discretion should not be used arbitrarily ; the discretion should be exercised on sound principles of law capable of correction by an appellate Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Prabhakarlal Kalwar S/O Mohanlal ... vs Gajanan S/O Jaikishan Joshi on 4 February, 2026

29) "29...... Performance of the contract involving some hardship on the defendant which he did not foresee while non-performance involving no such hardship on the plaintiff, is one of the circumstances in which the court may properly exercise discretion not to decree specific performance. The doctrine of comparative hardship has been thus statutorily recognized in India. However, mere inadequacy of consideration or the mere fact that the contract is onerous to the defendant or improvident in its nature, shall not constitute an unfair advantage to the plaintiff over the defendant or unforeseeable hardship on the defendant. The principle underlying Section 20 has been summed up by this Court in Lourdu Mari David v. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy10 by stating that the decree for specific performance is in the discretion of the Court but the discretion should not be used arbitrarily; the discretion should be exercised on sound principles of law capable of correction by an appellate court."
Karnataka High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - H Sanjeevkumar - Full Document

Parswanath Saha vs Bandhana Modak (Das) on 20 December, 2024

“29. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; the discretion of the court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a court of appeal. Performance of the contract involving some hardship on the defendant which he did not foresee while non-performance involving no such hardship on the plaintiff, is one of the circumstances in which the court may properly exercise discretion not to decree specific performance. The doctrine of comparative hardship has been thus statutorily recognized in India. However, mere inadequacy of consideration or the mere fact that the contract is onerous to the defendant or improvident in its nature, shall not constitute an unfair advantage to the plaintiff over the defendant or unforeseeable hardship on the defendant. The principle underlying Section 20 has been summed up by this Court in Lourdu Mari David v. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy [(1996) 5 SCC 589 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kanigolla Lakshmana Rao vs Gudimetla Ratna Manikyamba And Anr. on 22 January, 2003

In the case of Lourdu Mari David v. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy (supra), the Apex Court was considering the provisions of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. It was held that the relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act is the discretion of the Court, but the discretion should not be refused arbitrarily. The discretion should be exercised on sound principles of law capable of correction by an appellate Court. It was also held that person claiming specific performance not coming to the Court with clean hands is not entitled for the equitable relief and a decree for specific performance could not be granted.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next