Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 42 (0.39 seconds)Section 9 in The Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 63 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Mrs. Chandnee Widya Vati Madden vs Dr. C. L. Katiai, & Others on 25 March, 1963
152. Further, the reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court
in Chandnee Widya Vati Madden Vs. Dr. C.L. Katial and Anr 48 by the
Respondents in support of their contention proposition that the
Petitioner could be ordered and directed to identify the property in the
final Award for decree for specific performance is misconceived. In that
case the essential terms have been agreed upon and a complete contract
had come into existence. The only requirement of the vendor was to
apply to the Chief Commissioner for permission to sell the property. It is
on these facts the Supreme Court upheld the decree for specific
performance granted by the High Court which had directed the vendor
48
AIR 1964 SC 978
100/116
::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2024 05:43:43 :::
ARBP(L) 28284.2022 with 9 Ors.doc
to make the application for permission to Chief Commissioner for sale of
the property. In the present case, as held above a complete contract has
not come into existence as the identity of the property was never agreed
upon between the parties. A query had fallen from this Court as to
whether the Claimants are willing to accept any Plot which may have
been identified by the Petitioner in the event specific performance was
awarded to which the Counsel for the Respondents submitted that it was
upto the Respondents to accept or not to accept a plot of land identified
by the Petitioner after specific performance was awarded. This would
only go to show that a valid and enforceable contract had not come into
existence inter alia due to the fact that the parties had not agreed upon
the identity of the property.
Section 14 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
P. D'Souza vs Shondrilo Naidu on 28 July, 2004
168. The decision relied upon by the Respondents in P.D.'Souza Vs.
Shondrilo Naidu53 on the proposition that readiness and willingness on
the part of the party seeking specific performance also depends on the
Defendants' conduct is misconceived. I am of the view that the evidence
on record demonstrates that the Claimants were not ready and willing
to perform their obligations under the Agreement and hence this
decision is inapplicable in the present case.