Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.52 seconds)Section 55 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
K.S. Vidyanadam And Ors vs Vairavan on 6 February, 1997
In this connection, it is useful to refer
to the decision of the Apex Court in K.S.VIDYANADAM AND OTHERS vs. VAIRAVAN
(1997 III SCC 1), wherein it is observed that the party is not entitled for a
discretionary relief on the payment of a small amount as earnest money
considering the fact that the house property located in the urban area and
continuing steep rise in price thereof, which is also one of the relevant
factor for the Court to decide. The facts of the said decision is squarely
applies to the facts of the present case also.
Board Of Control For Cricket In India vs Zee Telefilms Limited on 2 May, 2005
In the light of the above provision, considering the fact that the parties
herein are only at the stage of negotiations on which date the advance amount
was paid, it cannot be construed that the contract was a concluded contract.
The above view is supported by the principles laid down by a Division Bench of
this Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Zee Telefilms Ltd
(2005 (2) CTC 609).
Brij Mohan And Ors vs Smt. Sugra Begum And Ors on 19 July, 1990
21. The Supreme Court in its judgment reported in 1990 4 SCC
147 ( Brij Mohan vs. Sugra Begum) has clearly held that whenever the
plaintiff has come forward to seek a decree for specific performance of
contract of sale of immovable property on the basis of an oral agreement
alone, heavy burden lies on him to prove that there was consensus ad idem
between the parties for a concluded oral agreement of sale of immovable
property. In the instant case, the plaintiff has not discharged the said
burden in proving that there was consensus ad idem.
M/S Rickmers Verwaltung Gmb H vs The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 19 November, 1998
In this regard, the
Supreme Court in its judgment reported in 1999 (1) SCC 1 (RICKMERS VERWALTUNG
GMBH vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD) has laid down the law as set out
here-under:-
Smt. Mayawanti vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi on 6 April, 1990
22. Similarly, the Supreme Court in its decision reported in
1990 (3) SCC 1 (MAYAWANTI vs. KAUSHALYA DEVI) has observed as follows:-
Prakash Chandra vs Angadlal And Ors. on 24 January, 1979
Similarly, he has placed reliance upon the decision in PRAKASH CHANDRA vs.
ANGADLAL (AIR 1979 SC 1241) and contended that ordinarily specific performance
should be granted and it can be denied only when equitable considerations
point to its refusal and the circumstances show that damages would constitute
an adequate relief.
U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd vs Indure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 9 February, 1996
24. Similar view is expressed by the Apex Court in its
decision in 1996 (2) SCC 667 (U.P.RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD vs. INDURE PVT.
LTD). The relevant paragraph is extracted here-under: