Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (1.14 seconds)

Mrs. Chandnee Widya Vati Madden vs Dr. C. L. Katiai, & Others on 25 March, 1963

In Mrs. Chandnee Widya (supra) this Court confirmed the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that if the Chief Commissioner ultimately refused to grant the sanction to the sale, the plaintiff may not be able to enforce the decree for specific performance of the contract but that was not a bar to the Court passing a decree for that relief. The same is the position in the recent case. If after the grant of the decree of specific performance of the contract, the Land and Development Officer refused to grant permission for sale Page 0096 the decree holder may not be in a position to enforce the decree but it cannot be held that such a permission is a condition precedent for passing a decree for specific performance of the contract.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 142 - B P Sinha - Full Document

C.B. Gautam vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 November, 1992

108. It is the follow-up by the litigation on behalf of the plaintiffs that ultimately resulted in the writ petitions being allowed with the direction to the appropriate authority to give a hearing and decide the matter afresh as per the pronouncement of the Apex Court in C.B. Gautam's case (supra). The representation before the appropriate authority was by the plaintiffs including on behalf of the seller and ultimately the sale permission was granted on 25.4.1994 (Exhibit PW-1/14).
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 487 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next