Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.33 seconds)
Chandulal K. Shah And Vaibhav C. Shah vs Nisha Deepak Saraf & Anr on 4 September, 2017 cites

Silla Chandra Sekharam vs Ramchandra Sahu on 24 April, 1964

KJ ::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2017 02:01:10 ::: 12 suit2543.12.doc 15 Shri Dasgupta relied upon 1Silla Chandra Sekharam Vs. Ramchandra Sahu where it was held that even if the title is perfected after the filing of the Suit, specific performance can be granted. If the Vendor or Lessor has subsequently to the sale or lease acquired any interest in the property, the Purchaser or Lessee may compel him to make good the contract out of such interest. 16 Shri Dasgupta for plaintiffs submitted that it is apparent from take over notice dated 14.05.2011 (Exhibit D), take over notice dated 23.07.2012 (Exhibit G), take over notice dated 27.08.2012 (Exhibit H) and Public Notice by Bank dated 5.09.2012 (Exhibit J collectively), that defendants as on 31 st March 2011 were neither in possession of the title deeds of the suit flat nor were they in a position to convey the same to plaintiffs, since the mortgage was not foreclosed. Plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract at all time, but plaintiffs' performance was dependent upon the reciprocal obligation to be performed by defendants and the time for performance by plaintiffs would arise only after the reciprocal obligation is performed by defendants. The fact that defendants did not clear the bank dues and not having done so, plaintiffs could not be called upon to perform their obligation of making final payment, as defendants' title to the suit flat was not 1 (1964) & SCR 858 : AIR 1964 SC 1789 KJ ::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2017 02:01:10 ::: 13 suit2543.12.doc marketable as on 31st March 2011. It is only on 12th February 2014 that defendants agreed to make payment of the outstanding loan of the Bank on or before 28th February 2014. However, in spite of undertaking to the Hon'ble Court the defendants failed to make the said payment. Therefore vide Order dated 5th March 2014, defendants once again undertook to pay Rs.3,25,000/- on or before 10th March 2014 and this time the documents of title were directed to be deposited in Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 11 - R Dayal - Full Document

Bishambhar Nath Agrawal vs Kishan Chand And Ors. on 9 September, 1997

(b) Bishambhar Nath Agarwal Vs. Kishan Chand where it was held the essential precondition to competency of the seller to transfer-permission should be obtained by him first before payment of consideration amount by purchaser where the contract stipulates mutual obligations to be performed as is in Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.01.2011. A party is not entitled to complain of non-performance, i.e.,defendant herein of later obligation by the other party, i.e., plaintiffs, without performing their earlier obligation.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 19 - B K Sharma - Full Document

Smt. Swarnam Ramachandran & Another vs Aravacode Chakungal Jayapalan on 25 August, 2004

(c)4Swarnam Ramachandran Vs. Aravacode Chakungal Jayapalan where it was held that time is presumed not to be the essence of a contract relating to an immoveable property. A vendor has no right to make time the essence of the contract unless he is ready and willing to proceed to completion. Admittedly there was no Notice to make time the essence of the contract, therefore, the Hon'ble Court has to examine the real intention of the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 91 - Full Document

Ref: Case No. 25/2010, 41/2010, ... vs .£33 U?" £~':S5=..Ig1"M'1E':Nt 0'? ... on 16 February, 2012

(d) D.N.Dutt Vs. M.V.Gupta where it was held even if time was the essence of the contract of sale, where the Vendor has not perfected his title to the goods by the date when the contract has 3 (AIR 1998 Allahabad 195) 4 [(2004) 8 SCC 689] 5 (AIR 1958 Punjab 289) KJ ::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2017 02:01:10 ::: 15 suit2543.12.doc to be completed, there is no breach on part of the Vendee, if he failed to pay the consideration on that date and complete the contract.
Competition Commission of India Cites 27 - Cited by 1254 - Full Document

Smt. Chand Rani (Dead) By Lrs. vs Smt. Kamal Rani (Dead) By Lrs. on 18 December, 1992

20 Defendants also relied upon K.S.Vaidyanathan and others Vs. Vairavan in which the Apex Court after referring to Chand Rani (supra) has reiterated the views expressed in Chand Rani. Counsel submitted that the Supreme Court held that rigour of the rule evolved by Courts that time is not of the essence of the contract in the case of immoveable properties- evolved in times when the prices and values were stable and inflation was unknown- 7 AIR 1993 SC 1742 8 AIR 1997 SC 1751 KJ ::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2017 02:01:10 ::: 18 suit2543.12.doc requires to be relaxed, if not modified, particularly in the case of urban immoveable properties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 190 - S Mohan - Full Document

K.S. Vidyanadam And Ors vs Vairavan on 6 February, 1997

20 Defendants also relied upon K.S.Vaidyanathan and others Vs. Vairavan in which the Apex Court after referring to Chand Rani (supra) has reiterated the views expressed in Chand Rani. Counsel submitted that the Supreme Court held that rigour of the rule evolved by Courts that time is not of the essence of the contract in the case of immoveable properties- evolved in times when the prices and values were stable and inflation was unknown- 7 AIR 1993 SC 1742 8 AIR 1997 SC 1751 KJ ::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2017 02:01:10 ::: 18 suit2543.12.doc requires to be relaxed, if not modified, particularly in the case of urban immoveable properties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 494 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1