citedby: 48279622

Sh. Sanjay Gupta vs Sh. Bal Ram (Deceased) on 7 June, 2018

16. As per the terms of contract/agreement to sell as reproduced hereinabove, no date was fixed in the present case for performance of contract i.e. for execution of sale deed. It does not imply that there was no time limit in the contract. Though a particular calender date was not mentioned for execution of Sale deed, and although the date was not ascertainable initially, as soon as the seller /vendee /defendant took the necessary permissions / Suit No. 1753/16/95 Sanjay Gupta v Balram Page No. 11 of 40 clearances, it became an ascertained date. The contract stipulates as under:-

Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Roshan Kumar vs Poonam Devi And Anr on 6 May, 2026

10. The plaintiff with this assurance given by the defendants when contacted the defendant no.2 on 23.10.2019 found out to his utter shock that Manoj Kumar's contact number was no more in service and when the plaintiff visited the house of the defendants i.e. the suit property, defendant no.1 i.e. Smt. Poonam Devi, told plaintiff that Manoj Kumar/defendant no.2 was not in the town and has gone somewhere for business purpose which she was not aware about and that defendant no.2 would be returning soon. The plaintiff again on 01.11.2019 visited the house of the defendants but CS SCJ 338/20 Roshan Kumar Vs. Poonam Devi & Anr. Page No.5 of 14 defendant no.2 was still not there and the defendant no.1 started making excuses and said that she had no clue about the whereabouts of her son i.e. defendant no.2 herein. On this, the plaintiff told the defendant no.1 that he would file a police complaint against them and would get them behind bars, if his money is not paid back within two days. On this defendant no.1 said that she had no money to pay back to him and that her son would return his money soon. Moreover, as per the promissory note given by the defendant no.1 and 2 dated 01.09.2019 to the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 transferred the titled documents of the property bearing No. I-2-796/11, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-110080 including an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Letter of Possession and her Will alongwith her Affidavit all dated 07.11.2019 in favour of the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff that she alongwith her son i.e. defendant no. 2 herein, would return his money soon and that she had transferred the property documents as an assurance to him and that if in case they are not able to return the amount she would i.e. the defendant no.1 handover the physical vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.

Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vikas Gupta S/O Late Satya Prakash Gupta vs Satish Kumar S/O Shri Trilok Chand on 19 September, 2019

The fact of the matter is that it is none of the plaintiff's case that notwithstanding dishonour of the aforesaid cheque, the defendant took the property in question from his father or CS No. 3421/16 Vikas Gupta vs. Satish Kumar Page No. 2 of 4 from him. Thus, it is the view of this Court that there is no legal liability made out qua the cheque in question as against the defendant. There is no doubt a presumption as regards consideration attached to a negotiable instrument in terms of section 118, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. However, this presumption is a rebuttable one. Section 118, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 itself starts with 'unless the contrary is proved'. In the case at hand, from plaintiff's own case, it is clear that there was no legal liability qua the cheque Ex. PW1/1. Accordingly, the assertions that defendant owes Rs. 10 lacs to the plaintiff is not correct. This aspect can be looked at from another angle. It would be an absurd situation if the plaintiff, who continues to retain the immovable property in question, is also allowed to recover Rs. 10 lacs from the defendant without him parting with ownership/possession of the same. This would in fact amount to unjust enrichment. Besides this, the plaintiff has not averred in his plaint or proved that his father had suffered any loss/damage. Further, this suit, to my mind, is time barred. The suit, filed on 28.11.2016, on the basis of cheque dt. 09.09.2013 (Ex. PW1/1) is clearly time barred. The fact that the cheque on presentation for the second time had returned dishonoured vide cheque return memo dt. 03.12.2013 (Ex. PW1/3) will not suffice to extend the period of limitation. The cheque return memo dt. 03.12.2013 (Ex. PW1/3) is not defendant's 'acknowledgment in writing' that can fall under section 18, Limitation Act. According to section 6 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 a cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand. Article 35 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act stipulates a period of three years to institute a suit on the basis of a bill of exchange and time for the same begins to run from the date on the bill. In the case at hand, the date mentioned on the cheque Ex. PW1/1 is 09.09.2013.

Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Anita Gupta Sole Proprietor Of vs Mr. Ahmad Sole Proprietor on 9 June, 2022

Anita Gupta v. Ahmad Page no. 3 of 3

Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Contract Act

In Sukumart Gupta V. Dhtrendranazh,' Pal, J. took the View that the deﬁnition in section 182 seemed to be somewhat wider than that of English Law, inasmuch as the deﬁnition does not require that the employment should be by the principal himself. The soundness of this view has been doubted by Pollock and Mullaz.

Law Commission Report Cites 206 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vantage Point Asset Management Pte. Ltd vs Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi on 1 October, 2024

78. The present is the case where CoC and RP did not grant any opportunity to Sarda to modify or amend the terms of the Resolution Plan. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Judgment noticed that the above was a case where question of modification of the Resolution Plan was involved hence liberty was granted to other Resolution Applicant to modify its Plan which Order was maintained. In Paragraph 13 as noted above, observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are "this much is clear that certain key features/stipulations of the Resolution Plan were sought to be amended by the Appellant". Thus, the Judgment of the `Ajay Gupta' (Supra) was in the background when Appellant sought to amend the Resolution Plan hence CA (AT) (Ins.) Nos.1619 & 1620; 1621 & 1622; & 1696 & 1697 of 2024 83 the liberty was granted to other Resolution Applicants also to modify its Plan in Paragraph 10.