Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
Kum Boomika vs N S Gangadhar on 17 April, 2013 cites

Vidur Impex & Traders Pvt.Ltd.& Ors vs Tosh Apartments Pvt.Ltd.& Ors on 21 August, 2012

7. Since the decisions on which Sri Hegde placed reliance has been considered in Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited (supra), it is unnecessary for me to again take note of the earlier judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to consider the claim of the applicants/petitioners. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi has made it clear that in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale, third party claiming independent title and possession over contractual property is neither necessary nor proper party and therefore not entitled to be impleaded as a party in the suit. The ratio of said decision squarely applies to the case on hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 229 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Razia Begum vs Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & Others on 23 May, 1958

2. Sri. S.G.Hegde, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners by placing reliance on the decision in the case of RAZIA BEGUM vs. SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM AND OTHERS, AIR 1958 SC 886 and VIDUR IMPEX AND TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS vs. TOSH APARTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS, (2012) 8 SCC 384 contended that the petitioners are necessary and proper parties to the suit and hence, IA.No.7 ought to have been allowed by the learned Trial Judge. Learned counsel further contended that since IA.No.7 has not received lawful consideration in the hands of the learned Trial Judge, interference in the matter is warranted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 442 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1