Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (2.71 seconds)Abdul Shaker Sahib vs Abdul Rahiman Sahib And Anr. on 1 November, 1922
17. As regards the requirement of positive refusal by the decree-holder for the purpose of rescinding the contract, a later Division Bench of this Court in Saraswathi alias Kalpan v. P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar 80 L.W. 454, expressed its dissent from the observations made in Abdul Shaker's case I.L.R. 46 Mad. 148. After referring to the earlier Bench judgment, the later Bench observed thus:
Section 23 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Hungerford Investment Trust Limited ... vs Haridas Mundhra & Others on 9 March, 1972
13. The Supreme Court had occasion to deal with this aspect of the matter in Hungerford Investment Ltd., v. Haridas Mundhra . The relevant observation is found in paragraph 28 of the judgment, which reads thus:
K. Kalpana Saraswathi vs P.S.S. Somasundram Chettiar on 29 November, 1979
18. In my view, the opinion of the Division Bench in the later case is more correct and in accord with law than the opinion of the Division Bench in the earlier case. I prefer to follow the Division Bench judgment in the later case. It must also be pointed out that the judgment of the Division Bench in Saraswathi alias Kalpana v. P.S. S. Somasundaram Chettiar 90 L.W. 454 has been affirmed in so far as the principles of law are concerned by the Supreme Court in K. Kalpana Saraswathi v. Somasundaram Chettiar . The principles of law laid down were left undisturbed by the Supreme Court though the Supreme Court though fit to grant some time to the decree-holder to deposit the balance of consideration.
K. Saraswathi (Alias) K. Kalpana vs P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar on 2 November, 1976
18. In my view, the opinion of the Division Bench in the later case is more correct and in accord with law than the opinion of the Division Bench in the earlier case. I prefer to follow the Division Bench judgment in the later case. It must also be pointed out that the judgment of the Division Bench in Saraswathi alias Kalpana v. P.S. S. Somasundaram Chettiar 90 L.W. 454 has been affirmed in so far as the principles of law are concerned by the Supreme Court in K. Kalpana Saraswathi v. Somasundaram Chettiar . The principles of law laid down were left undisturbed by the Supreme Court though the Supreme Court though fit to grant some time to the decree-holder to deposit the balance of consideration.
Section 19 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Anandilal Poddar vs Gunendra Kr. Roy And Anr. on 19 June, 1961
In Anandilal v. Gunendra , the Calcutta High Court has referred to the decision of the said Division Bench and followed the principle of law laid down therein. Dealing with the question of rescission of contracts, the learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court has stated thus: