Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Section 14 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
G.Jayashree & Ors vs Bhagwandas S.Patel & Ors on 19 December, 2008
31. While the judgments cited at the bar by Sri.Kulkarni,
generally support the 2" defendant/appellant independent
of that also we are of the view that the present situation
clearly as not one where the trial Judge could not have
decreed the suit as prayed for. We find that the principle
of law as interpreted by Supreme Court on the provisions of
the Act in the case reported in the case of G JAYASHREE
& OTHERS vs BHAGWANDASS S PATEL & OTHERS
((2009) 3 SCC 141j aptly applies to the present case.
Section 44 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
State Of Rajasthan vs Kartar Singh on 18 March, 1970
14, Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed
reliance on the Pull Bench decision of the Delhi High Court
in the case of RAJ RAM VS. KARTAR SINGH (1973 LAW
SUIT (DELi 8 by drawing our attention to the observations
at paragraph 10 of the judgment, it is submitted that the
trial Court exercising its discretion in favour of the plaintiff
in the present circumstances was not equitable visavis
defendant No.2/appellant and the conduct of the plaintiff
clearly disentitles the equitable discretionary relief of
specific performance and therefore submits that the suit
should have been dismissed.
The Companies Act, 1956
K. Kallaiah vs Ningegowda on 13 April, 1981
Reliance is also placed on the
Sini i3ench decision of this Court in the case of
K.KALLAIAH VS. NINGEGOWDA (AIR 1982 KAR 93) to
submit that in the present case time was not the essence of
the eta ract that there was neither any such stipulation
flüi a as a condition that it is not as though the contract
neither had been put to an end for not having performed
contract within six months initial period nor has it got
frustrated as there was no circumstance which had caused
the subject matter either to be not available or have
chanced in its character and nature and therefore submits
7t
24
r
that there was absolutely no impediment for decreeing the
suit and has urged for dismissal of the appeal.
1