Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.77 seconds)
Shri Parma Nand vs Shri Dorje Ram & Others on 16 July, 2015 cites

Lala Durga Prasad And Another vs Lala Deep Chand And Others on 18 November, 1953

In Lala Durga Prasad and Anr. v. Lala Deep Chand & Ors., 1954 SCR 360, in a suit for specific performance the subsequent purchaser was held to be a necessary party. In this case the petitioner is merely seeking the specific performance of the agreement of sale. Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, provides that except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, the specific performance of a contract may be obtained by "any party thereto"; and under s. 16 the Court has been given ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:36:11 :::HCHP 13 discretion and personal bars to relief. Therefore, based on the fact situation, the court would mould the relief The respondent is neither a necessary nor a proper party to .
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 205 - V Bose - Full Document

M/S. Aliji Momonji & Co vs Lalji Mavji & Ors on 12 July, 1996

would not arise. In Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal's case (1992) 2 SCC 524, this Court had pointed out in para 18 of the judgment that the notice did not relate to the structure but to two chattels. Original lessee from the landlord had no direct interest in that property. Under these circumstances, it was held that the second respondent has no direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation and the addition thereof would result in causing serious prejudice to the appellant and the substitution or the addition of a new cause of action would only widen the issue which was required to be adjudicated and settled, It is true, as pointed out by Shri Nariman that in para 14, this Court in that case had pointed out that what makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a necessary witness. It is not merely that he has an interest in the correct solution of some question involved and has thought of relevant arguments to advance. The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. The line has been drawn on a wider construction of the rule between the direct interest or the legal interest and commercial interest. It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to go into the wider question whether witness can be a proper and necessary party when the witness has a commercial interest.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 67 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next