Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Habitat Developers (P) Limited vs S. M. Sahid Alam And Others on 21 September, 2010 cites

Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004

In this connection he has referred a case law reported in 2004 3 SCC page 137 (Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others.). Learned advocate for the respondents has also submitted relating to the effects of non-registration of plaintiff Company under Promoter Act of 1993 and of not taking permission for undertaking construction work under development agreement and referred a case law. But in view of foregoing discussions no discussion is required in this regard.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 541 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Vipin Bhimani And Anr. vs Sunanda Das And Anr. on 24 February, 2006

Mr. Ganesh Srivastava learned advocate for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that under Section 14 (3) of the Specific Relief Act the plaintiff who was admittedly a developer in terms of the purported agreement dated 10.02.1989 was not entitled to institute any suit for specific performance of said development agreement and as such filed a suit for injunction to take a chance. According to him, said suit for injunction without any prayer for specific performance of the contract was not maintainable as plaintiff developer was neither in possession of the property nor had any claim over the property on account of alleged development agreement. In this connection he has referred a case law reported in (2006) 2 CAL LT 157 (H.C.) (Vipin Vimani and another v. Smt. Sunanda Das and another). In the referred case law it was specifically held by this Hon'ble Court that from the provisions contained in Section 14(3) (c ) of the Specific Relief Act it is clear that a suit for specific performance of development agreement at the instance of a developer is clearly hit 8 by the provisions contained therein and that developer is not also entitled to get any consequential relief for permanent injunction for revocation of agreement and that the developer being agent was only entitled to get damages, if any. Admittedly, the instant suit of 1995 was filed by the developer against the owners of the property praying for permanent injunction restraining them from entering into agreement with the third party for development of the suit property. Said suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable in view of the ratio of the above referred case law.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 25 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977

In this connection, the case law reported in (1977) 4 SCC Page 467 (T. Arivandandam versus T. V. Satyapal and another) may be referred wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that if on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is found to be manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, learned Trial Court should exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 11 C. P.C. I am of the opinion that meaningful reading of the plaint includes reading and / or considering the document and / or facts referred in the plaint. In the instant case the facts of filing of the earlier suit in 1991 and of receiving the letter of advocate in 1990 were mentioned in the plaint of 1995. As such no error was committed by Lower Appellate Court in considering those facts at the time of examining the applicability of order 7 rule 11 C. P. C. in the facts of this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 1095 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1