Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)
K S Murahari Rao S/O Krishnoji Rao Sakre vs P J Ranganath S/O P Janardhanaiah on 22 August, 2024
cites
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
K.S. Vidyanadam And Ors vs Vairavan on 6 February, 1997
7. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.
Vidyanadam v. Vairavan2, has held that delay in seeking
specific performance can be fatal, especially where the
rights of third parties have intervened. Here, the sale deed
in favour of defendant No.2 was completed before the
filing of the suit, and defendant No.2 has subsequently
taken possession of the property through ejectment
proceedings. Granting specific performance to the plaintiff
would, therefore, unjustly prejudice the rights of
defendant No.2, who is in lawful possession.
2
(1997) 3 SCC 1
R.K. Mohammed Ubaidullah & Ors vs Hajee C.Abdul Wahab (D) & Ors on 18 July, 2000
9. The plaintiff has failed to substantiate the
allegation that the transaction between defendant No.1
and defendant No.2 was collusive or fraudulent. The
Supreme Court in R.K. Mohammed Ubaidullah v. Hajee
C. Abdul Wahab3, held that allegations of fraud must be
proved by cogent evidence and cannot be based on mere
suspicion or conjecture.
Premji Ratansey Shah And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 July, 1994
11. The fact that defendant No.3, a consenting
witness, signed the transaction further weakens the
plaintiff's claim of collusion. As per the Hon'ble Supreme
Court's ruling in Premji Ratansey Shah v. Union of
India4, when a party who is privy to the transaction does
not object to it, the Court must take it as a strong
indication of the transaction's genuineness unless there is
concrete evidence to the contrary. The plaintiff has not
provided such evidence.
Central Bank Of India vs Ravindra And Ors on 18 October, 2001
NC: 2024:KHC:34118
RFA No. 2014 of 2005
C/W RFA.CROB No. 27 of 2009
there are compelling circumstances. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra6, clarified
that while Section 34 grants the Courts discretion, the
exercise of this discretion must align with the facts and
circumstances of each case, particularly where equity
demands a departure from standard rates.
Alok Shanker Pandey vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 February, 2007
16. The plaintiff's investment, which dates back to
1997, must be viewed in light of the economic realities of
the time. The value of Rs.1,30,000/- in 1997 was
substantial, and its present-day equivalent has drastically
depreciated due to inflation and other economic factors.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alok Shanker Pandey v.
Union of India7, recognized that compensation must
account for the loss in the value of money over time.
While Section 34 generally limits the awarding of interest,
it is also well-settled that the Court has the discretion to
grant a higher rate of interest in cases where equity and
justice demand it.
Secretary Irrigation Department ... vs G.C. Roy on 12 December, 1991
NC: 2024:KHC:34118
RFA No. 2014 of 2005
C/W RFA.CROB No. 27 of 2009
Department, Govt. of Orissa v. G.C. Roy8, held that
where one party has wrongfully delayed or breached its
obligations, the Court can exercise its discretion to award
interest at a higher rate to ensure that the aggrieved party
is adequately compensated. In this case, defendant No.1's
actions not only delayed the plaintiff's legitimate claim but
also created significant financial hardship for the plaintiff,
who has been deprived of the use of the money for over
two decades.
Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 17 March, 2004
19. In this case, the plaintiff is likely to face a
prolonged legal battle to recover the amount invested.
Given the passage of time and the reduced value of the
initial investment, the award of interest at 24% per
annum, though higher than the usual statutory rate,
serves the purpose of providing adequate compensation to
the plaintiff. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad
Development Authority v. Balbir Singh10 emphasized
the principle of restitution, holding that a party who has
been wronged must be restored to the position they would
have been in had the wrong not occurred. Here, the
plaintiff's loss of both time and the value of money
invested justifies the award of higher interest.
Nathulal vs Phoolchand on 16 October, 1969
5. Upon careful scrutiny of the material on record,
the plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance depends
on several settled principles of law. In this case, while the
plaintiff has successfully proved the execution of the
agreement to sell dated 08.02.1997 and the payment of
the advance amount, this alone does not warrant a decree
for specific performance. The Supreme Court in Nathulal
v. Phoolchand1 emphasized that specific performance is
a discretionary relief, and the Court must balance the
equities of the case before exercising its discretion in
favour of the plaintiff.
1