Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.96 seconds)
Maj. Sudhir Narula vs Sharu Ram And Others on 4 February, 2025 cites

Kamal Kumar vs Premlata Joshi on 7 January, 2019

In Kamal Kumar vs. Premlata ata Joshi and others,, 2019 AIR (SC) 459,, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that issue of readiness and willingness is the most important issue for considering the grant of specific performance erformance of contract. The said issue having been held by the two Courts below on the appreciation of the evidence against the Page No.10 out of 19 pages 10 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 05-02-2025 07:36:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016148 RSA No.376 of 1991 plaintiff, such finding is binding being essentially question of fact. In this case,, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 77 - A M Sapre - Full Document

Sughar Singh vs Hari Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. on 26 October, 2021

16. Proceeding further, the he contention of learned counsel for the appellant that once suit has been filed within limitation, then the Court has no discretion and is required to pass a decree for specific performance has no merit. Learned counsel has referred to Sughar ar Singh vs. Hari Singh(Dead) (Dead) through L.Rs and others (2021) 17 SCC 705,, wherein it was held that when agreement is found to be duly executed and the he plaintiff is found to be ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the relief for specific performance cannot be denied. It was held that discretion under Section 20 is required to be exercised judiciously, soundly and reasonably. Not to gran grantt the decree for specific performance despite execution of agreement to sell is proved and part sale consideration is proved and the plaintiff is always ready and willing Page No.12 out of 19 pages 12 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 05-02-2025 07:36:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:016148 RSA No.376 of 1991 to perform the contract would encourage dishonesty and that in such a situation, the balance should tilt in favour of the plaintiff plaintiff, rather in favour of the defendant executing the agreement to sell while exercising discretion judiciously.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 60 - M R Shah - Full Document

Nawab Basheer Jung (D) By Lrs. . vs M/S. M.A. Bari . on 30 November, 2017

20. Taking similar view in the case of U.N. Krishnamurthy (since deceased) through LRs Vs. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 AIR (Supreme 3361 Hon'ble Supreme Court held Court) 3361, d that the fact that limitation is three years does not mean that purchaser can wait for one or two years to file the suit and obtain specific performance. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: -
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

M/S.P.R. Deb And Associates vs Sunanda Roy on 1 March, 1996

40. As argued by Mr. Venugopal, the fact that the suit had been filed after three years, just before expiry of the period of limitation, was also a ground to decline the Respondent Plaintiff the equitable relief of Specific Performance for purchase of immovable property. Mr. Venugopal's argument finds support from the judgments of this Court in P.R. Deb and Associates v. Sunanda Roy (1996) 4 SCC 423; K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan (1997) 3 SCC 1; Manjunath Anandapa v. Tammanasa (2003) 10 SCC 390, Azhar Sultana v. B. Rajamani (2009) 17 SCC 27; Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi (2011) 12 SCC
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

Manjunath Anandappa Urf. Shivappa ... vs Tammanasa & Ors on 13 March, 2003

40. As argued by Mr. Venugopal, the fact that the suit had been filed after three years, just before expiry of the period of limitation, was also a ground to decline the Respondent Plaintiff the equitable relief of Specific Performance for purchase of immovable property. Mr. Venugopal's argument finds support from the judgments of this Court in P.R. Deb and Associates v. Sunanda Roy (1996) 4 SCC 423; K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan (1997) 3 SCC 1; Manjunath Anandapa v. Tammanasa (2003) 10 SCC 390, Azhar Sultana v. B. Rajamani (2009) 17 SCC 27; Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi (2011) 12 SCC
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 51 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next