Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.52 seconds)
Sudhir Kumar Dixit & Anr. vs Parteek Realots India Pvt. Ltd. on 22 July, 2019 cites

Satish Batra vs Sudhir Rawal on 18 October, 2012

The above referred principles were reiterated in Satish Batra Vs. Sudhir Rawal (2013) 1 SCC 345. It would, thus, be seen that only that amount would constitute earnest money which is paid at the time when contract is concluded between the parties. Any payment made after the contract is concluded, cannot be said to be part of the earnest money. In the case before us, admittedly, only a sum of Rs.63,469/- was paid to the Petitioner Company at the time the deal was concluded between the parties. Therefore, in view of the above said referred authoritative pronouncements of the Honble Supreme Court, only the aforesaid forfeited amount can constitute earnest money.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 239 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Roshan Lal vs The Delhi Cloth And General Mills ... on 10 August, 1910

5. Forfeiture of earnest money under a contract for sale of property-movable or immovable--if the amount is reasonable, does not fall within s. 74. That has been decided in several cases: Kunwar Chiranjit Singh v. Hat Swarup (t); Roshan Lal v. The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd., Delhi (2); Muhammad Habibullah v. Muhammad Shafi (3); Bishan Chand v. Radha Kishan Das(4); These cases are easily explained, for forfeiture of a reasonable amount paid as earnest money does not 6 amount to imposing a penalty. But if forfeiture is of the nature of penalty, s. 74 applies.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 76 - Full Document
1