Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (0.38 seconds)

Balraj Taneja & Anr vs Sunil Madan & Anr on 8 September, 1999

90. Mr. Chinoy had contended that in view of provisions of section 16(b) and (c)the petitioners are not entitled to specific performance and that the mandatory nature of compliance was well settled law and as observed by the Supreme Court in Balraj Taneja & Anr. vs. Sunil Madan & Anr.(1999) 8 SCC 396 and Raj Kishore(dead) by LRs.vs. Prem Singh & Ors. (2011)1 SCC 657 as also in B. Vijaya Bharathi vs. P Savitri (2018) 11 SCC 761. Mr. Chinoy contended that the legal pre-conditions urged are not technical in ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:06:52 ::: *82* carbp-442.17(Prysmian)09012019.odt nature. They embody basic principles of justice and equity and constitute fundamental principles of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 582 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next