Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 189 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing A.C. Arulappan vs Smt. Ahalya Naik on 10 August, 2001

Ved Parkash Kharbanda vs Vimal Bindal on 8 March, 2013

20.10.6 In A.C. Arulappan v. Ahalya Naik (smt), (2001) 6 SCC 600, the Supreme Court held that if under the terms of the contract the plaintiff gets an unfair advantage over the defendant, the Court may not exercise its discretion in favour of the plaintiff. Also, specific relief may not be granted if the defendant would be put to undue hardship which he did not foresee at the time of agreement. If it is inequitable to grant specific relief, then also the Court would desist from granting a decree to the plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 77 - J R Midha - Full Document

Janaki vs S.Desigan on 29 September, 2009

36.Therefore this Court is of the opinion that the said finding arrived at the Trial Court having not found to be unreasonable and improper the same cannot be set aside. Moreover without a discretionary relief is not granted by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court in the normal circumstances cannot be interfered with the same. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2001) 6 SCC 600 [A.C.ARULAPPAN vs. AHALYA NAIK] has observed that in such circumstances the relief cannot be granted to the plaintiffs.
Madras High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 1 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Dhariwal S Ashok vs Neelavathamma R on 3 January, 2026

16. Issue No.4:- Specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. In the present case, execution of agreement is not proved, readiness and willingness are absent, the property is joint family property and the conduct of the plaintiff lacks bonafides. Grant of specific performance would cause undue hardship to the 12 O.S. No.377/2005 defendant. Applying the principles laid down in the case of A.C.Arulappan v. Ahalya Naik [(2001) 6 SCC 600] and K.Narendra v. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd., [(1999) 5 SCC 77], the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought. Hence, Issue No.4 is answered in the negative.
Bangalore District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next