Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)
Sri H Nagabhushana vs Sri Viju B Jain on 24 March, 2026 cites

Ardeshir H. Mama vs Flora Sassoon on 21 May, 1928

"6. But the respondent has claimed a decree for specific performance and it is for him to establish that he was, since the date of the contract, continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. If he fails to do so, his claim for specific performance must fail. As observed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Ardeshir Mama v. Flora Sassoon, 1928 SCC OnLine PC 43:
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 172 - Full Document

N.P. Thirugnanam (D) By Lrs vs Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao & Ors on 12 July, 1995

In N.P. Thirugnanam v. R. Jagan Mohan Rao [N.P. Thirugnanam v. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, (1995) 5 SCC 115], it was held that continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant of the relief of specific performance. This circumstance is material and relevant and is required to be considered by the court while granting or refusing to grant the relief. If the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior to and subsequent to the filing of the suit along
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 486 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Pushparani S. Sundaram And Ors. vs Pauline Manomani James (Deceased) And ... on 4 May, 2000

In Pushparani S. Sundaram v. Pauline Manomani James [Pushparani S. Sundaram v. Pauline Manomani James, (2002) 9 SCC 582], this Court has held that inference of readiness and willingness could be drawn from the conduct of the plaintiff and the totality of circumstances in a particular case. It was held thus : (SCC p. 584, para 5) "5. ... So far these being a plea that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract is there in the pleading, we have no hesitation to conclude, that this by itself is not sufficient to hold that the appellants were ready and willing in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. This requires not only such plea but also proof of the same. Now examining the first of the two circumstances, how could mere filing of this suit, after exemption was granted be a circumstance about willingness or readiness of the plaintiff. This at the most could be the desire of the plaintiff to have this property. It may be for such a desire this suit
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 97 - A P Misra - Full Document

M/S. Wander Ltd., Bombay And Etc. vs M/S. Antex India Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore And ... on 19 July, 1990

12. In view of the repayment and acceptance of money by the plaintiff, the existence of a subsisting enforceable contract is doubtful and therefore, no prima facie case exists. The grant of injunction would unnecessarily restrain the defendants' property rights whereas refusal would not cost irreparable injury as the plaintiff can be compensated in monetary terms. No irreparable injury is made out particularly when the plaintiff has already accepted the amount. The Apex Court in Wander Limited Vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd.3 (Wander Limited) and in the case of Dalpat Kumar and Another vs Prahlad Singh and Ors4 (Dalpat Kumar) has observed that the three essential ingredients while considering a refusal or grant of injunction is prima facie case, balance 3 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 4 (1992) 1 SCC 719
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 24 - A S Anand - Full Document
1   2 Next