Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)
Zarina Siddiqui vs A.Ramalingam @ R.Amarnathan on 29 October, 2014 cites

Nirmala Anand vs Advent Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors on 30 September, 2002

20. However, the court may take notice of the fact that there has been an increase in the price of the property and considering the other facts and circumstances of the case, this Court while granting decree for specific performance can impose such condition which may to some extent compensate the defendant-owner of the property. This aspect of the matter is considered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Nirmala Anand vs. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd. and Others, (2002) 8 SCC 146.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 56 - H K Sema - Full Document

Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet vs Noor Ahmad Sheriff And Ors on 11 May, 2011

In the case of Vimaleshwar Nagappa Shet vs. Noor Ahmed Shariff and others, (2011) 12 SCC 658, an agreement to sell a dwelling house was entered into by some of the co-sharers and the matter was ultimately compromised on payment of higher price. On those facts the Court held that since the value of the property escalates in urban areas very fast, it would not be equitable to grant relief of specific performance after the lapse of a long period of time. The said decision has no application in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 55 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

H. Siddiqui (D) By Lr vs A. Ramalingam on 4 March, 2011

11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the High Court, petitioner approached this Court preferring an appeal by special leave being Civil Apeal No.6956 of 2004. This Court by judgment dated 4.3.2011 in that appeal titled as H. Siddiqui vs. A. Ramalingam, (2011) 4 SCC 240, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and remanded back the matter to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. This Court in the remand order observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 253 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Narinderjit Singh vs North Star Estate Promoters Ltd on 8 May, 2012

“40. The discretion to direct specific performance of an agreement and that too after elapse of a long period of time, undoubtedly, has to be exercised on sound, reasonable, rational and acceptable principles. The parameters for the exercise of discretion vested by Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 cannot be entrapped within any precise expression of language and the contours thereof will always depend on the facts and circumstances of each [pic]case. The ultimate guiding test would be the principles of fairness and reasonableness as may be dictated by the peculiar facts of any given case, which features the experienced judicial mind can perceive without any real difficulty. It must however be emphasised that efflux of time and escalation of price of property, by itself, cannot be a valid ground to deny the relief of specific performance. Such a view has been consistently adopted by this Court. By way of illustration opinions rendered in P.S. Ranakrishna Reddy v. M.K. Bhagyalakshmi (2007) 10 SCC 231 and more recently in Narinderjit Singh v. North Star Estate Promoters Ltd.(2012) 5 SCC 712 may be usefully recapitulated.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 121 - G S Singhvi - Full Document
1   2 Next