Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.62 seconds)Section 20 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Man Kaur(Dead)By Lrs vs Hartar Singh Sangha on 5 October, 2010
Let us give an example. Take a case where there is a contract for sale for a consideration of Rs.10 lakhs and earnest money of Rs.1 lakh was paid and the vendor wrongly refuses to execute the sale deed unless the purchaser is ready to pay Rs.15 lakhs. In such a case there is a clear breach by the defendant. But in that case, if the plaintiff did not have the balance Rs.9 lakhs (and the money required for stamp duty and registration) or the capacity to arrange and pay such money, when the contract has to be performed, the plaintiff will not be entitled to specific performance, even if he proves breach by the defendant, as he was not "ready and willing" to perform his obligations."
Hardev Singh vs Gurmail Singh (Dead) By Lrs on 2 February, 2007
This Court in Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (2007) 2 SCC 404: (2007) 3 MLJ 44 held that Section 52 of the Act does not declare a pendente lite transfer by a party to the suit as void or illegal, but only makes the pendente lite purchaser bound by the decision in the pending litigation.
M/S J.P.Builders & Anr vs A.Ramadas Rao & Anr on 22 November, 2010
(ii) (2011) 1 SUPREME COURT CASES 429 J.P.BUILDERS AND ANOTHER V. A.RAMADAS RAO AND ANOTHER would run thus:
K.M. Madhavakrishnan vs S.R. Swami And Another on 21 March, 1995
1995(1) L.W. 716 [K.M.Madhavakrishnan vs. S.R.Swami and another], certain excerpts from it would run thus:
1