Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (1.50 seconds)
Documents citing T.M. Balakrishna Mudaliar vs M. Satyanarayana Rao And Others on 31 March, 1993

Kavi Eswari vs Munikrishnan

In the case of Habiba Khatoon [(1997) 7 SCC 452] taking stock of earlier decisions of this Court, the Privy Council and the High Court of Bombay, the law on the present-contested issue was explained to uphold the right of repurchase of the original contracting party thus: (SCC pp. 461-62, para 12) “We may in this connection also usefully refer to a decision of this Court in the case of T.M. Balakrishna Mudaliar v. M. Satyanarayana Rao [(1993) 2 SCC 740] .
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kavi Eswari vs Munikrishnan

In the case of Habiba Khatoon [(1997) 7 SCC 452] taking stock of earlier decisions of this Court, the Privy Council and the High Court of Bombay, the law on the present-contested issue was explained to uphold the right of repurchase of the original contracting party thus: (SCC pp. 461-62, para 12) “We may in this connection also usefully refer to a decision of this Court in the case of T.M. Balakrishna Mudaliar v. M. Satyanarayana Rao [(1993) 2 SCC 740] .
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashokkumar Jayantilal Sheth Thro'Poa ... vs Heirs Of Deceased Narmadaben Widow Of ... on 31 July, 2014

8.2 In T.M. Balkrishna Mudliar Vs N. Satyanarayana Rao [AIR 1993 SC 2449] after construing the contract giving right to repurchase, held that such right given was no personal right, was assignable and the assignee was entitled to enforce the contract by instituting suit for specific performance and that the assignee would fall within the meaning of representative-in-interest as contemplated under Clause (b) of Section 15.
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - N V Anjaria - Full Document

Shyam Singh vs Daryao Singh (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 19 November, 2003

From the statement of law as has been approved and followed by this Court in two the decisions in Habiba Khatoon and TM Balakrishna Mudaliar (supra) unless the contents of the document in question and evidence in relation thereto are so clear to infer a prohibition against assignment or transfer, the right of repurchase has to be held to be assignable or transferable and cannot be treated as personal to the contracting parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Shyam Sundar And Anr. vs Parbati Devi And Ors. on 7 May, 2003

"Thus normally any interest in a contract should be assigned to any representative-in-interest who also can enforce the specific performance of the contract against the contracting party. However, if the terms of the contract, expressly or by necessary implication, prohibited the beneficiary from transferring his contractual interest to third parties, then only such an assignee cannot sue for specific performance. We may in this connection also usefully refer to a decision of this Court in the case of T.M. Balakrishna Mudaliar v. M. Satyanarayana Rao.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next