Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd vs Regency Convention Centra & Hotels & Ors on 6 July, 2010
The aforesaid observations have been referred to in
Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. vs. Regency
Convention Centre and Hotels (P) Ltd. reported in (2010)
7 SCC 417 and the same has been relied upon in
Baluram vs. P. Chellathangam reported in AIR 2015 SC
1264.
Section 22 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Baluram vs P.Chellathangam & Ors on 10 December, 2014
The aforesaid observations have been referred to in
Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. vs. Regency
Convention Centre and Hotels (P) Ltd. reported in (2010)
7 SCC 417 and the same has been relied upon in
Baluram vs. P. Chellathangam reported in AIR 2015 SC
1264.
Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs Nanak Builders & Investrs.P.Ltd & Ors on 21 February, 2013
In this regard,
reference could be made to Thomson Press (India)
Limited vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private
Limited and others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 397.
Although that case touched upon Section 52 of the
Transfer of Property Act and with regard to the
purchase of the property which is the subject of a suit
for specific performance during the pendency of the
suit, nevertheless in that case it is held that when the
subject matter of a suit for specific performance is
transferred during the pendency of the litigation, in that
event, under Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC a trasferee of
the suit property could be impleaded as a party to the
proceeding and be heard before any order is made. This
is because a transferee pendente lite would claim an
interest in the subject matter of the suit under the
vendor who would be a defendant in a suit for specific
performance.
The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890
Section 21 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Nagubai Ammal & Others vs B. Shama Rao & Others on 26 April, 1956
made to Section 19 (c) of the Act wherein it has been
categorically stated that specific performance of contract
may be enforced against either party thereto or any
other person claiming under him by a title arising
subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for
value who has paid his money in good faith and without
notice of the original contract. This is because a transfer
pendente lite is not illegal but would remain subservient
to the pending litigation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Nagubai Ammal vs. B. Shama Rao reported in
AIR 1956 SC 593 and several such decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of a transferee
pendente lite he would be in a similar position as a heir
or a legatee of a party who dies during the pendency of
the suit or a proceeding and therefore could seek
impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.
Particularly, if he is a bonafide purchaser for valuable
consideration, he would have to be heard before passing
Section 52 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
1