Shri Satya Bhushan Kaura vs Smt. Vijaya Myne on 22 December, 2006
M.C. Kendall v. S. Chandrasekhar wherein the court placing reliance on an earlier pronouncement of the privy counsel stated thus:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.51 seconds)Documents citing
Lt. Cdr. M.C. Kendall vs S. Chandrasekhar on 30 August, 1991
Saraswathi Ammal vs V.C. Lingam on 4 November, 1992
24. In Lt. Cdr. M.C. KENDALL v. S.CHANDRASEKHAR, a Bench of this Court pointed out that, mere rise in price, subsequent to the date of contract or inadequacy of price is not to be treated as a hardship entailing refusal of specific performance of the contract, and under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the circumstances to be considered cannot be enumerated. A totality of several circumstances has to be considered before considering the grant or refusal of the relief of specific performance.
Gulzar Singh vs Harbans Kaur And Ors. on 20 December, 2007
29. At the same time we may also point out that discussing the exception contained in Clause (b) of Sub-section (2), where discretion not to pass decree for specific performance in case of undue hardship to the defendants, the Karnataka High Court in the judgment rendered by it in Lt. Cdr. M.C. Kendall v. S. Chandrasekhar AIR 1991 Karnataka 4142, while interpreting Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act held as under:
Sh. Kanwar Singh Tanwar vs Sh. Davinder Kumar on 23 April, 2016
"20. The Learned Single Judge referred to the following
observation of the Karnataka High Court, in the case of Lt. Cdr. M.C. Kendall
vs. S. Chandrasekhar, AIR 1991, Karnataka 4142, interpreting Section 20 of
the Act :
1