Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)Section 38 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Rajesh D. Darbar & Ors vs Narasingrao Krishnaji Kulkarni & Ors on 6 August, 2003
44. The Supreme Court has held that the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not devoid of powers to do justice in such a case and, in fact, in view of subsequent facts, the relief can also be appropriately moulded and subsequent events can be taken note of [ Rajesh D. Darbar's case (supra) ].
Divisional Forest Officer vs Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd on 5 May, 1981
43. The reference by learned counsel for the respondent DDA to judgments of the Supreme Court would not be of much assistance since the Supreme Court even in Divisional Forest Officer's case (supra) had said that the civil suit would be the appropriate remedy `ordinarily'. This is not an ordinary situation where a public authority is asking the auction purchaser to pay the amount in respect of plot of which it is not in a position to hand over possession because of the encroachments on the same.
Jawahar Lal Wadhwa And Anr. vs Haripada Chakraborty on 18 November, 1987
31. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a person guilty of anticipatory breach is not entitled to seek the equitable relief for specific performance. Since the petitioner had committed anticipatory breach of contract, the petitioner would not be entitled to a decree of specific performance and cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel in this behalf referred to judgment of the Supreme Court in Jawahar Lal Wadhwa & Anr. v. Haripada Chakroberty, in view of the observations made in the said judgment to the effect that where a party to contract commits an anticipatory breach of the contract, the other party to the contract may treat the breach as putting an end to the contract and sue for damages, but in that event he cannot ask for specific performance. The other option open to the other party, namely, the aggrieved party is that he may choose to keep the contract alive till the time for performance and claim specific performance but, in that event, he cannot claim specific performance of the contract unless he shows his readiness and willingness to perform the contract. It is, thus, contended that the petitioner has no option to sue for specific performance of the contract.
Article 54 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 20 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 51 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
The D.F.O., South Kheri And Ors. vs Ram Sanehi Singh on 15 January, 1970
45. Even in such cases where the matters are of contract and where auction has taken place of land vesting with DDA, which has to be dealt with in terms of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981, this Court is not debarred from exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Supreme Court in The D.F.O. South Kheri's case (supra). It may also be noticed that DDA is under an obligation to keep the land free from encroachments under clause 5 of the terms and conditions of auction.