Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)
Sri N Narayanappa S/O Marisonnappa vs Sri Pillappa on 21 September, 2024 cites

Vidhyadhar vs Manikrao & Anr. on 17 March, 1999

30. The defendant's failure to provide any evidence to refute the plaintiff's claims or to demonstrate why specific performance should be denied leaves the plaintiff's case unchallenged. The fact that the plaintiff has paid the full consideration and has been placed in possession strengthens his position. Furthermore, the defendant's failure to testify casts doubt on the legitimacy of his defense. As the Supreme Court has noted in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao (supra), when a party with personal knowledge of the facts chooses not to appear as a witness, the Court may draw an adverse inference that the case set up by such a party is not true. In this case, the defendant's 30 refusal to testify leads to the presumption that his claims about the misuse of blank signed papers are unsubstantiated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 681 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Lakshmamma And Ors. vs M. Jayaram on 4 October, 1951

10. Learned Senior Counsel in the light of these significant details has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the High Court of Mysuru in the case of Lakshmamma and Others vs. M.Jayaram2. Referring to the law laid down in the above said judgment, he would contend that defendant having admitted his thumb impression on the said document and GPA was required to discharge the burden and substantiate that the document was not at all executed by him and that he had affixed his 2 AIR 1952 Mys 114 11 LTM under the circumstances indicated in the written statement. Therefore, he would contend that defendant having failed to mount the witness box and has consciously denied opportunity to plaintiff to cross-examine the defendant. On these significant details, trial Court erred in dismissing the suit.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

K. Narendra vs Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd on 24 May, 1999

29. The relief of specific performance is a discretionary remedy governed by equitable principles, as emphasized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Narendra v. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd.5 The Court in this case held that while specific performance is not an automatic right, it can only be refused when enforcing the contract would lead to undue hardship or cause injustice. In determining whether to grant specific performance, the Court must examine the conduct of both parties, the fairness of the agreement, and whether enforcing the contract would result 5 (1999) 5 SCC 77 29 in disproportionate harm. In the present case, there is no evidence to suggest that granting specific performance would cause hardship to the defendant. On the contrary, denying the relief would lead to an unfair outcome for the plaintiff, who has already fulfilled his obligations under the contract by making full payment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 148 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr vs Praveen Kumar Singh on 13 February, 2006

32. Moreover, the findings of the Trial Court on Issue No.3 appear to be both erroneous and perverse. Despite acknowledging that the defendant did not testify and failed 31 to substantiate his claims, the Trial Court ruled in the defendant's favour on this issue. This ruling runs counter to the weight of the evidence and to established legal principles. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishore Kumar Khaitan vs. Praveen Kumar Singh6, has held that when a party fails to present themselves as a witness, Courts must draw an adverse inference against them. In the present case, the Trial Court's failure to properly consider this principle led to an incorrect finding. The defendant's non-appearance shifted the burden of proof, which he failed to discharge. His allegation that the plaintiff misused blank signed papers is entirely unsupported by evidence, and the Trial Court's failure to recognize this has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, point Nos.3 and 4 formulated above are answered in the affirmative.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 148 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document
1   2 Next