Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)
Rizvi Nagar Co-Op. Hsg. Sty. Ltd. vs The Municipal Corporation Of Gr. Bombay ... on 19 October, 1992 cites

Durga Mhoan Hoshi vs International Metal Industries And ... on 23 September, 1983

In the judgment of this Court in the case of Durga Mohan Joshi v. International Metal Industries and others, , or which reliance has been placed by Mr. Soni, the case of Periyakkal v. Dakshyani (supra) came for consideration. Smt. Sujata V. Manohar, J., while distinguishing the facts of the case before her from that in the case before the Supreme Court, has observed as under :
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 9 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Smt. Periyakkal & Others vs Smt. Dakshyani on 2 March, 1983

In the judgment of this Court in the case of Durga Mohan Joshi v. International Metal Industries and others, , or which reliance has been placed by Mr. Soni, the case of Periyakkal v. Dakshyani (supra) came for consideration. Smt. Sujata V. Manohar, J., while distinguishing the facts of the case before her from that in the case before the Supreme Court, has observed as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 67 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Prithvichand Ramchand Sablok vs S.Y. Shinde on 16 January, 1985

13. Mr. Soni has also relied upon the case of Prithichand Rameshchand Sablok v. S.Y. Shinde, , where it has been held that whether a consent decree creates a new tenancy or continues the old tenancy was to be decided on the language of the decree itself. Jahagirdhar, J., while stating the law relating to interpretation of a consent decree therein, however, reiterated the well settled principle that the Court in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction is not precluded from granting relief against forfeiture of a term contained in the consent decree.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Daza N. Gandhi And Another vs Indira Maruti Varadkar And Another on 17 April, 1990

11. Both Mr. Parekh and Mr. Soni have put reliance on the case of Daxa N. Gandhi & another v. Indira Maruti Varadkar & another, wherein H. Suresh, J., has held that on broad principle it can be said that if the clause concerned is in the nature of penalty or a forfeiture, the Court is always competent to give relief against it. H. Suresh, J., has further held "The test is whether by allowing the decree-holder to enforce the default clause, would be get more than what he deserves? If the Court in its conscience considers that he would unjustly enrich himself by holding on to the default clause, it would interfere, be it a consent decree or otherwise, for example, in the present case, if the decree was for cancellation of the agreement on the defendants paying a certain amount within a certain time, failing which the entire property more to pass an to the plaintiffs, and if the defendants were to apply for extension of time on facts mentioned herein, the Court would not hesitate to grant such a relief".
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1