Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (2.29 seconds)
Documents citing Niwas Builders vs Chanchalaben Gandhi (Since Deceased ... on 10 December, 2002

Om Prakash Aggarwal vs Raj Kumar Mittal on 28 February, 2019

74. The plaintiff has not shown the availability of the balance sale consideration of Rs.8,50,00,000/- with him at any stage. The plaintiff was never "ready" and „willing‟ to make the payment of the balance sale consideration to the defendant. It appears that the plaintiff issued the letter dated 1st July, 2010 to HDFC Bank and letter dated 12th August, 2010 to the defendant with the dishonest intention of creating a false plea of "readiness" and "willingness". The plaintiff had no intention to pay the balance sale consideration and he instituted this frivolous suit to grab the defendant‟s property in the hope that by the time the litigation is over, he would get the property at the price mentioned in the agreement and would arrange the money by that time. The plaintiff‟s plea is inherently unconvincing and cannot be accepted. Reference be made to Kalawati (supra), Niwas Builders (supra), Sri Punny Akat Philip Raju (supra) and Ganuga CS(OS) 1284/2011 Page 56 of 64 Ranganath (supra) discussed above.
Delhi High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 13 - J R Midha - Full Document

Sou.Sharada Nanasaheb Patil And Others vs Shri Appaso Jivappa Chougule And Others on 20 September, 2019

19. The learned Counsel for the defendants contends that the defendant nos.1 and 2 were not the exclusive owners of the suit property. He contends that Bayakka, the sister of defendant no.1 had equal share in the suit property. He submits that the finding of the trial court that the defendant no.6 is the son of Bayakka and defendant no.7 is based on the birth certificate at Exhibit 125 and other surrounding circumstances. He submits that the defendant no.6 being the son of Bayakka had half share in the property. The salgaonkar 11 of 59 20.9.19 Judgment SA 114-.doc defendant nos.1 and 2 who had right to half share could not have entered into an agreement in respect of the entire property. He strenuously urges that the First Appellate Court was not justified in discarding the documentary evidence and reversing the finding of the trial court which is based on the evidence on record. Relying upon the decision in Niwas Builders vs. Chanchalabe Gandhi 2003 (3) MHLJ 312, & Hemanter Mondal vs. Ganesh Chandu Naskar 2016(6) MHLJ 30, he submits that the defendant nos.3, 4 and 5 are bonafide purchasers. Over 38 years have lapsed since the time they have purchased the property. The price of the property has increased manifold during the pendency of the litigation and this would be one of the grounds not to exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiff.
Bombay High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 1 - A Prabhudessai - Full Document

Smt. Madhu Sharma Bhatnagar vs Sachin Sharma ( Rsano. 133/18) Decided ... on 30 July, 2022

16. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant to buttress his arguments has relied upon the following citations: IN Re: Pandam Tea Co Ltd. 1972 Tax. L.R. 1923, Maun Kyi Oh and Anr. Ma Thet RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.122/19 Page No. 9/23 Pon 1926 Lawsuit (PC) 56,Chander Kishore Sharma and Anr. V. Smt. Kampa Wati (AIR 1984 Delhi 14) and Niwas Builders v. Chanchalaben Gandhi 2002 Lawsuit (Bom) 967.
Delhi District Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Makers Development Services Pvt. Ltd. vs M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research ... on 25 April, 2008

112. Finally Mr. Samdani submitted that this is a fit case where the court ought to refuse specific performance. He founded the submission on the basis of a decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Niwas Builders versus Chanchalaben (2003) 7 LJSOFT = (2003) 3 Mh. L.J. 312 and in particular paragraph 31 thereof which reads as under :
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 21 - S J Vazifdar - Full Document

Naresh Lachmandas Aswani vs Haridas Alias Hardas Lachmandas on 18 October, 2013

51. As far as Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Niwas Builders (supra) relied upon by Mr Patwardhan in support of his submission that third defendant is bound by its own pleadings and must stand on his own pleadings is concerned, in my view, that Judgment will be of no assistance to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is bound by his own pleadings. If plaintiff has not proved Asmita 34/47 ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:27:31 ::: .. 35 .. Suit-808/11 what is asserted in plaint, plaintiff must fail.
Bombay High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 2 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Smt. Kiran Bala Mehru vs Late Mr. Dulal Chand Nandi Deceased on 30 January, 2010

In Niwas Builders vs. Chanchalaben Gandhi (since deceased through legal heirs) 2003 (3) Civil Court cases 99 (Bombay), Hon'ble Court observed that it is to be borne in mind as to whether a party is 47 trying to take undue advantage over the other as also the hardship that may be caused to the defendant by directing specific performance; that there may be other circumstances on which parties may not have any control; the totality of the circumstances is required to be seen.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Kiran Bala Mehru vs Late Mr. Dulal Chand Nandi Deceased on 30 January, 2010

In Niwas Builders vs. Chanchalaben Gandhi (since deceased through legal heirs) 2003 (3) Civil Court cases 99 (Bombay), Hon'ble Court observed that it is to be borne in mind as to whether a party is 47 trying to take undue advantage over the other as also the hardship that may be caused to the defendant by directing specific performance; that there may be other circumstances on which parties may not have any control; the totality of the circumstances is required to be seen.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next