Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.24 seconds)Prem Jeevan vs K.S. Venkata Raman on 17 January, 2017
59. This Court while allowing the appeals filed by the judgment debtor held that
although Section 28 of the Act permits the judgment debtor to seek rescission of a
contract and also permits extension of time by the court yet merely because
rescission of contract was not sought by the judgment debtor would not
automatically result in extension of time. Thus, the decision of this Court in Prem
Jeevan (supra) was altogether in a different factual scenario. The same is of no avail
to the appellants herein.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Surinder Pal Soni vs Sohan Lal (D) Thru Lr on 23 July, 2019
28. The doctrine of merger is founded on the rationale that there cannot be more
than one operative decree at a given point of time. The doctrine of merger applies
irrespective of whether the appellate court has affirmed, modified or reversed the
decree of the trial court. The doctrine has been discussed and explained succinctly
by this Court in Surinder Pal Soni v. Sohan Lal (Dead) through Legal
Representatives, (2020) 15 SCC 771.
Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000
32. The decision in Kunhayammed (supra) was followed by a three-Judge Bench
decision of this Court in Chandi Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad, (2004) 8 SCC 724, which
held thus:
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (Now Khoday ... vs Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare ... on 1 March, 2019
31. This position of law has been affirmed and reiterated by a three-Judge Bench
decision of this Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara
Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 376.
Chandi Prasad & Ors vs Jagdish Prasad & Ors on 1 October, 2004
33. The decision in Chandi Prasad (Supra) was followed by a two-Judge Bench of
this Court in Shanthi v. T.D. Vishwanathan, (2019) 11 SCC 419 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ)
787, rendered on 24-10-2018 in the following terms:
Shanthi vs T.D.Vishwanathan And Ors on 24 October, 2018
33. The decision in Chandi Prasad (Supra) was followed by a two-Judge Bench of
this Court in Shanthi v. T.D. Vishwanathan, (2019) 11 SCC 419 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ)
787, rendered on 24-10-2018 in the following terms:
Sardar Mohar Singh Throughpower Of ... vs Mangilal @ Mangtya on 15 January, 1997
In the case of Sardar Mohar Singh (supra), this Court had held that the Court
does not lose its jurisdiction after the grant of decree for specific performance nor
it becomes functus officio. This Court had further held that the very fact that
Section 28 of the Act itself gives power to grant order of rescission of the decree,
the same would indicate that till the sale deed is executed in execution of the
decree, the Trial Court retains its power and jurisdiction to deal with the decree of
specific performance. The Court has the discretion to extend time for compliance
of the conditional decree as mentioned in the decree for specific performance.
Bhupinder Kumar vs Angrej Singh on 28 August, 2009
In Bhupinder Kumar v. Angrej Singh, (2009) 8 SCC 766 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 556,
this Court held thus :