Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.98 seconds)
Unknown vs Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust And ... on 22 December, 2010 cites

Kale & Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ors on 21 January, 1976

In support of his aforesaid submission, Mr.Ranjit Kumar firstly relied on the decision of the three-Judge Bench in Kale vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation in which the question of registration of a family arrangement had fallen for consideration. Their Lordships held that a family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary. Registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing but there also a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made, either for the purpose of recording or for information of the Court for making necessary mutation. In such a case, the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any right in the immovable properties and, therefore, neither does it fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 nor is it compulsorily registrable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 687 - S M Ali - Full Document

Jai Narain Parasurampuria (Dead) & Ors vs Pushpa Devi Saraf & Ors on 24 August, 2006

15. The above Section was referred to by the Supreme Court in Jai Narain Parasrampuria v. Pushpa Devi Saraf and it was held that conduct of both the parties has to be examined before passing a decree for specific performace or awarding compensation. Reference was made to several Texts on equity and equitable remedies and circumstances/cases where damages can be awarded in substitution for an order of specific performance. The court also examined the question what should be the quantum and measure of compensation. In the said case, as the parties were guilty of serious misconduct and both of them had abused process of law by filing frivolous litigations and had suppressed material facts, the Supreme Court declined to grant decree of specific performance and directed that compensation should be paid.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 164 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Nirmala Anand Appellant vs Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... on 10 May, 2002

In the said decision, several earlier decisions of the Supreme Court have been referred to. In the case of Nirmala Anand v. Advent Corporation (P) Limited, the Supreme Court affirmed the principle that grant of decree of specific performance lies in the discretion of the court and decree will not follow as it is legal to do so. Several facts have to be taken into consideration including conduct of the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, though ordinarily a plaintiff would not be denied relief of specific performance only on account of abnormal increase in prices during the pendency of litigation. However, equities have to be balanced and the question, who is defaulting party and whether any party is trying to take undue advantage over the other as also question of hardship has to be gone into and examined. Totality of circumstances have to be considered and in a given case phenomenal increase in prices during the pendency of litigation can be one of the considerations besides many others for refusing a decree of specific performance."
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 161 - D Raju - Full Document
1   2 Next