Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)
Beant Singh And Ors vs Karnail Singh And Ors on 12 February, 2016 cites

I.S.Sikandar (D) By Lrs.& Ors vs K.Subramani & Ors on 29 August, 2013

7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that as the defendants had rescinded the agreement lawfully, the plaintiffs were required to file a suit for declaration only and not suit for specific performance. On this point, reliance was placed on the decision from Hon`ble Supreme Court in I.S.Sikandar [D] By Lrs Vs. K. Subramani and others, 2014(1) R.C.R. [Civil] 236, wherein it was held that in case of seller terminating the agreement of sale of property, suit for specific PARKASH SOM 2016.02.12 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-2572-2011 [O&M] 4 ...
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 140 - V G Gowda - Full Document

M/S J.P.Builders & Anr vs A.Ramadas Rao & Anr on 22 November, 2010

the target date, the plaintiffs had purchased stamp papers worth Rs.2,56,000/- and got typed the sale deed. The plea taken by the plaintiffs has rightly been appreciated by the Court of first Appeal that on the target date, sale deed could not be executed simply because the defendants insisted that the payment be made in the shape of bank draft, whereas the plaintiffs were ready to make the payment in cash and with mutual consent, the target date was rescheduled to be 19.6.2006. There was no question of plaintiffs being not ready and willing to perform their part of agreement, rather all the attending circumstances establish that the plaintiffs were willing and ready to perform their part of the agreement. The plaintiffs were simply required to show that they had sufficient cash and financial capacity to execute the sale deed to prove their readiness and willingness. Such a view was taken by Hon`ble Supreme Court in M/s J.P. Builders and another Vs. A. Ramadas Rao and another, 2011 (1) RCR [Civil] 604 Sargunam [Dead] by LR Vs. Chidambaram, 2004[4] RCR [Civil] 721 and by this Court in Dalip Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh, 2007 [4] RCR [Civil] 120 and Jora Singh Vs. Lakhwinder Kumar and others, 2011 [1] RCR [Civil] 130.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 346 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001

13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings recorded by the Court of first Appeal are based on the evidence available on the record and correct appreciation of the law. The said findings do not call for any interference and the same are hereby affirmed. There is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal and hence, the same is not maintainable under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such a view was taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by LRs., JT 2001(2) SC 407.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 1602 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Dalip Singh vs Jagdish Singh And Anr. on 7 August, 1995

the target date, the plaintiffs had purchased stamp papers worth Rs.2,56,000/- and got typed the sale deed. The plea taken by the plaintiffs has rightly been appreciated by the Court of first Appeal that on the target date, sale deed could not be executed simply because the defendants insisted that the payment be made in the shape of bank draft, whereas the plaintiffs were ready to make the payment in cash and with mutual consent, the target date was rescheduled to be 19.6.2006. There was no question of plaintiffs being not ready and willing to perform their part of agreement, rather all the attending circumstances establish that the plaintiffs were willing and ready to perform their part of the agreement. The plaintiffs were simply required to show that they had sufficient cash and financial capacity to execute the sale deed to prove their readiness and willingness. Such a view was taken by Hon`ble Supreme Court in M/s J.P. Builders and another Vs. A. Ramadas Rao and another, 2011 (1) RCR [Civil] 604 Sargunam [Dead] by LR Vs. Chidambaram, 2004[4] RCR [Civil] 721 and by this Court in Dalip Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh, 2007 [4] RCR [Civil] 120 and Jora Singh Vs. Lakhwinder Kumar and others, 2011 [1] RCR [Civil] 130.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1