Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing Abbot India Ltd. vs Rajinder Mohindra & Anr. on 17 January, 2014

Jagrati @ Gayatri vs Vikas Sharma & Ors on 21 July, 2020

57. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the respondents on the verdict in Abbot India Ltd. Vs Rajinder Mohindra (2014) 208 DLT 201 holding that once it is found that there was no defence, merely because a bogey thereof is raised at the stage of framing of issues or upon the respondents/ plaintiffs filing an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, would not call for framing of an issue.
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - A Malhotra - Full Document

Dalip Kumar Gupta vs Kushal Chand Garg & Ors on 14 August, 2019

26. I have also considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that once a suit for specific performance filed by the appellant was pending, the learned trial Court ought not to have proceeded with the adjudication of the suit for possession filed by the respondent. This plea of the appellant is in the teeth of the various decisions of this Court including the decision in Abbot India Ltd. v. Rajinder Mohindra & Anr. [RFA No. 207/2013], wherein it has been categorically held that a tenant whose tenancy stands terminated, cannot be permitted to continue in the tenanted premises, merely on account of his having filed a suit for specific performance in respect of the said tenanted premises. The aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case i.e. specially in the light of the appellant's own plea that though he had entered into an oral agreement to sell with the erstwhile owner in January, 2000, but still he chose to file a suit seeking specific performance in January, 2016 i.e. exactly after 16 years and that too almost 1 year after the suit for possession was filed by the respondents. This, in itself, shows that the plea of an oral agreement to sell raised by the appellant is sham and wholly dishonest. However, I refrain from making any further observations on the appellant's conduct and the alleged agreement to sell in his favour, lest it affects his pending suit for specific performance.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - R Palli - Full Document

Sreelekha Manoj vs Ishakat Ali Khan on 25 November, 2021

24. Delhi High Court in Abbot India Ltd. vs Rajinder Mohindra & Anr. RFA No. 207/2013 decided on 17 January, 2014 observed that for Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to be invoked, the transferee should have in part performance of the contract of transfer taken possession of the property or if already in possession of the property should after the contract of transfer continue in possession in part performance of the contract of transfer.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next