Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)Dalip Singh vs Ram Nath And Anr. on 12 December, 2001
The learned Court by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Dalip Singh Vs. Ram Nath
and another 2003(2) Latest Judicial Reports 205 held the balance decretal
amount could be accepted, as no directions were given by the learned trial
Court on the failure of the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration,
C.R. No. 1719 of 2008 10
any adverse order was to be passed. The learned Court further held that it
could not go behind the decree.
Kumar Dhirendra Mullick & Others vs Tivoli Park Apartments (P) Ltd on 1 November, 2004
On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Kumar Dhirendra Mullick Vs. Tivoli Park Apartments (P) Ltd. 2004(4)
C.R. No. 1719 of 2008 11
RCR(Civil) 763 was pleased to observe it is within the jurisdiction of the
Court to refuse to execute a decree on the ground of unreasonable delay.
Chanda (Dead) Through Lrs vs Rattni & Anr on 23 March, 2007
Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in the
case of Chanda Vs. Rattni and another 1999(3) LJR 457, wherein again
this Court was pleased to lay down that payment of the balance sale
consideration is a condition precedent for execution of the sale deed, it
implies that the plaintiff / decree-holder is required to deposit the balance
sale consideration within the stipulated period in the first instance and it was
only thereafter the judgment-debtors were required to execute the sale deed.
In the said case the learned trial Court had rescinded the contract for want of
decretal amount, and the order was upheld by this Court.
Section 46 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1