Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.25 seconds)Kuldip Singh Suri vs Surinder Singh Kalra on 29 May, 1998
13(i) In the judicial precedent laid down in Kuldeep
Singh Suri (supra), Hon'ble High Court observed that it is a matter
of common knowledge that in all subleases executed on behalf of
the President of India such like restrictive clauses have been
incorporated. It is also a matter of common knowledge that due to
such like restrictions the power of attorney sales in thousands have
been effected. If the instant transaction is held to be illegal then in
that eventuality thousands of such transactions on the same token
would have to be declared as illegal. This would cause colossal
loss and misery to the vendees. Though both the vendors and the
vendees are in pari delicto, the vendors would be making capital
out of their breach by getting back their properties which over the
years have appreciated astronomically. It would be wholly
inequitable to declare such agreements being violative of perpetual
subleases.
Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
1