Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 98 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Kanshi Ram vs Om Prakash Jawal & Ors on 15 April, 1996

Matadin Agarwal And Etc. vs Syed Abdul Razack And Others on 5 November, 1996

No doubt the period consumed in litigation may not by itself a ground justifying denial of relief of specific performance, but as observed by the Supreme Court in Kanshi Ram v. Om Prakash Jawal (1996 AIR SCW 2606) (supra) that though the rise in prices of the property during the pendency of the suit may not be sole consideration for refusing to decree the suit for specific performance, but it is equally settled law that granting decree for specific performance of contract of immovable property is not automatic. As the permission contemplated by the parties as per the terms of the agreement from the competent authority was refused, I cannot hold that the discretion exercised by the trial Court in refusing the relief of specific performance, but granting alternate relief of damages is arbitrary.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Kishan Lal vs Chandro on 22 September, 2003

In Kanshi Ram v. Om Parkash Jaswal, (1996-2)113 P.L.R. 337 (supra), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the rise in prices of the property during the pendency of the suit may not be the sole consideration for refusing to decree the suit for specific performance but it is equally settled law that granting decree for specific performance of a contract of immovable property is not automatic. It was further held that it is one of discretion to be exercised on sound principles and when the Courts get into equity jurisdiction, it would be guided by justice, equity, good conscience and fairness to both the parties. In the reported case, it was found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Courts below were justified in granting alternative decree for damages instead of ordering specific performance which would be unrealistic and unfair and resultantly, it was held that the decree for specific performance was inequitable and unjust to the defendant. In my opinion, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-mentioned authorities would have no application to the facts of the present case. As referred to above, the decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell could be refused if it would be unrealistic and unfair or inequitable and unjust to the defendant.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - V M Jain - Full Document

Sitac Pvt Ltd vs Banwari Lal Sons Pvt Ltd & Ors on 2 July, 2019

41. The learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that in the present case the Arbitrator should have exercised his discretion and not CS(OS) No.486/2011 Page 16 directed specific performance of the Agreement. He submits that specific performance being discretionary, as the petitioner had itself claimed damages as an alternate relief, the Arbitrator should have exercised discretion by awarding damages instead of directing specific performance. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kanshi Ram v. Om Prakash Jawal, AIR 1996 SC 2150.
Delhi High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 1 - N Chawla - Full Document

Mary Antony vs Roy Joseph on 11 January, 2022

5. The various aspects regarding the exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the RFA NO. 98 OF 2013 10 Specific Relief Act has been dealt with by this Court in Vasudevakurup v. Haridasan (2021 (6) KLT 782), after referring a three Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi P.Gaikwad v. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel and Others (AIR 2001 SC 1462) and also the decisions of the Apex Court in A.C.Arulappan v. Smt.Ahalya Naik (AIR 2001 SC 2783) Tejram v. Patirambhau (AIR 1997 SC 2702)and in Kanshi Ram v. Om Prakash Jawan and Others (AIR 1996 SC 2150),S.Rangaraju Naidu v. S.Thiruvarakkarasu (AIR 1995 SC 1769),Azhar Sultana v.B.Rajamani and Ors (AIR 2009 SC 2157),Gobind Ram v. Gian Chand (AIR 2000 SC 3106), Damacherla Anjaneyulu and Another v. Damacheria Venkata Seshaiah and Another (AIR 1987 SC 1641), besides the the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Antony K.O and Another v. M.K.Krishnankutty Menoki and Others (2017 (1) KHC 479 = 2017 (1) KLJ 357). RFA NO. 98 OF 2013
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P Somarajan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next