Nathulal vs Phoolchand on 16 October, 1969
In Nathulal Vs. Phoolchand (cited supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paragraph No.9 has observed as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
N. Puttammal vs Bayammal
cites
Saradamani Kandappan vs S. Rajalakshmi & Ors on 4 July, 2011
In Saradamani Kandappan and Others Vs.
S. Rajalakshmi and Others (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court while dealing with the principle as to whether time is not the
essence of the contract relating to the immovable properties has
observed in paragraph Nos.23, 24, 27 & 28 as follows:
A.K. Lakshmipathy (D) & Ors vs Rai Saheb Pannalal H. Lahoti C.T. & Ors on 28 October, 2009
In support of
the said contentions, he relied upon the decision in
A.K.Lakshmipathy (Dead) and Others Vs. Rai Saheb Pannalal
H. Lahoti Charitable Trust and Others (2010) 1 SCC 287
Indira Kaur And Ors. vs Sheo Lal Kapoor on 28 March, 1988
http://www.judis.nic.in “23. It is of some interest to note that the distinction
20
between contracts relating to immovable properties and
other contracts was not drawn by Section 55 of Contract
Act (or any other provisions of Contract Act or Specific
Relief Act, 1963). Courts in India made the said
distinction, by following the English law evolved during
the nineteenth century. This Court held that time is not of
the essence of the contracts relating to immovable
properties; and that notwithstanding default in carrying
out the contract within the specified period, specific
performance will ordinarily be granted, if having regard
to the express stipulation of the parties, nature of the
property and surrounding circumstances, it is not
inequitable to grant such relief. [vide Gomathinayagam
Pillai (supra), Govind Prasad Chaturvedi (supra) and
Indira Kaur v. Sheo Lal Kapoor 1988 (2) SCC 188 and
Chand Rani (supra) following the decision of Privy
Council in Jamshed Khodaram Irani v. Burjorji
Dhunjibhai AIR 1915 PC 83 and other cases]. Of course,
the Constitution Bench in Chand Rani made a slight
departure from the said view.
K.S. Vidyanadam And Ors vs Vairavan on 6 February, 1997
28. Till the issue is considered in an appropriate case,
we can only reiterate what has been suggested in K.S.
http://www.judis.nic.in Vidyanadam (supra):
A.K. Lakshmipathy (Died) By Lr And Ors. vs Rai Saheb Pannalal Hiralal Lahoti ... on 23 February, 2005
In A.K.Lakshmipathy (Dead) and others Vs. Rai
Saheb Pannalal H. Lahoti Charitable Trust and Others (cited
supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.18 has
observed as follows:-
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 55 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
1