Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.22 seconds)Article 54 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sriram Cotton Pressing Factory (P) Ltd. vs K.E. Narayanaswami Naidu on 7 August, 1964
In Sriram Cotton Pressing Factor P. Ltd., Vs. Narayanaswamy Naidu, reported in AIR 1965 Madras page 32,(Division Bench), it has been held thus:-
Syndicate Bank vs Prabha D. Naik And Anr. Etc on 26 March, 2001
33. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in Syndicate Bank Vs. Prabha D.Naik and another and contended that Limitation Act, 1963 is the general law of Limitation for while of India and the provision regarding the remedy as provided in the Civil Code is deemed to be replaced by implication. The learned counsel relied upon the said pronouncement where the Apex Court held thus:-
S.V. Sankaralinga Nadar vs P.T.S. Ratnaswami Nadar And Ors. on 17 August, 1951
In the above circumstances, the principles laid down in the above case would apply to the facts of this case and from the considerable delay and laches on the part of the plaintiff, we can easily infer that there was a waiver or abandonment of the contract."
Nirmala Anand Appellant vs Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... on 10 May, 2002
In Nirmala Anand Vs. Advent Corpn., Pvt., Ltd., reported in 2002 AIR SCW page 2416, at page 2425 the Apex Court held thus:-
Sardar Singh vs Smt. Krishna Devi And Another on 21 November, 1990
In sardar Singh Vs., Krishna Devi and another it was held that since Section 20(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary, the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so observing at the same time that the exercise of such discretion must not be arbitrary but sound and reasonable guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by Appellate Court. The circumstances specified in Section 20 were considered to be illustrative and not exhaustive and that the court should take into consideration circumstances in each case, the conduct of the parties and ;the respective interest under the contract."....
Gobind Ram vs Gian Chand on 27 September, 2000
42. Taking into consideration of the facts of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court, this court holds that this is not a fit case where the lower appellate court could have granted relief of specific performance as a course of equity while exercising discretion as provided in Section 20 of The Specific Relief Act.