Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)

Vinod Seth vs Devinder Bajaj & Anr on 5 July, 2010

12. The reason why the Court has been vested with a discretion to relieve a party of the operation of lis pendens is that the pendency of a suit and the registration of a lis pendens (as required in Maharashtra) substantially restricts the freedom of a party to secure a buyer at a fair market value. The Supreme Court has recognised that the mere filing of a suit may be an ingenious way to create a cloud over the title of a party. The suit may remain pending over a long period of time. This has been recognized in the decision of the Supreme Court in Vinod Seth vs. Devinder Bajaj, [(2010) 8 SCC 1] in the following observations:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 176 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Gouri Dutt Maharaj vs Sheikh Sukur Mohammed on 6 April, 1948

10. Now, it is a well settled principle of law ever since the decision of the Privy Council in Gouri Dutt Maharaj vs. Sukur Mohammed, [AIR (35) 1948 PC 147] that the purpose of Section 52 is to maintain status quo in effect by any act of a party to the litigation pending its determination. Similarly, it is well settled that the operation of the doctrine of lis pendens does not depend upon the strength or weakness of the case of the Plaintiff or, as the case may be, of the Defendant, in bona fide proceedings.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 59 - Full Document
1   2 Next