Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.24 seconds)Article 54 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
K.S. Vidyanadam And Ors vs Vairavan on 6 February, 1997
33. The defendants also cited one other decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 1751 [K.S.Vidyanadam and others v. Vairavan]. An excerpt from it would run thus:
Arunachala Mudaliar vs Jayalakshmi Ammal And V.R. ... on 9 January, 2003
(iv) 2003(1) CTC 355 [Arunachala Mudaliar v. Jayalakshmi Ammal and another]
"25. ...The plaintiff has not deposited the amount that she should have deposited as per Ex.A7 before filing the suit for specific performance. The defendant had raised the plea that the deposit was not made and it would show the plaintiff's lack of bona fides. In spite of that the plaintiff not only does not deposit the amount before filing the suit, but P.W.1, the plaintiff's husband glibly says in his evidence that he has deposited the amount. The plaint does not even refer to any readiness or willingness to deposit and the suit notice claimed to have been issued has not been proved to have been issued. In the particular circumstance of the case and in view of the specific recitals regarding the deposit the plaintiff cannot be content with citing the explanation to Section 16(c) of the Act without proving his readiness and willingness clearly and beyond doubt."
Parakunnan Veetill Joseph'S Son Mathew vs Nedumbara Kuruvila'S Son And Ors. on 14 September, 1987
In P.V.Joseph's Son Mathew v. N.Kuruvila's Son AIR 1987 SC 2328 : 1987 Supp SCC 340, the Apex Court considered the scope and ambit of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and observed thus:
Indira Kaur And Ors. vs Sheo Lal Kapoor on 28 March, 1988
U.J.(S.C.)1988(1)650 [Smt.Indira Kaur and others vs. Shri Sheo Lal Kapoor]. An excerpt from it would run thus:
Surya Narain Upadhyaya vs Ram Roop Pandey And Others on 28 January, 1992
35. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs cited the decision of the Hon'ble Apex reported in AIR 1994 SC 105 [Surya Narain Upadhyaya vs. Ram Roop Pandey and others]. An excerpt from it would run thus:
M. Meenakshi & Ors vs Metadin Agarwal (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 29 August, 2006
(i) 2007-2-L.W.481 [M.Meenakshi & Others v. Metadin Agarwal (D) By LRs & others]
"39. Furthermore, Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act confers a discretionary jurisdiction upon the Courts. Undoubtedly such a jurisdiction cannot be refused to be exercised on whims and caprice; but when with passage of time, contract becomes frustrated or in some cases increase in the price of land takes place, the same being relevant factors can be taken into consideration for the said purpose. While refusing to exercise its jurisdiction, the courts are not precluded from taking into consideration the subsequent events. Only because the Plaintiff-Respondents are ready and willing to perform their part of contract and even assuming that the Defendant was not entirely vigilant in protecting their rights in the proceedings before the competent authority under the 1976 Act, the same by itself would not mean that a decree for specific performance of contract would automatically be granted. While considering the question as to whether the discretionary jurisdiction should be exercised or not, the orders of a competent authority must also be taken into consideration.
Pandurang Ganpat Tanawade vs Ganpat Bhairu Kadam & Ors on 30 July, 1996
38. The dictum in the case reported in AIR 1997 SC 463 [Pandurang Ganpat Tanawade vs. Ganpat Bhairu Kadam and others] is relating to one where the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the plaintiffs not only pleaded that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but they also proved it. But here, absolutely there is no modicum or shred of evidence adduced by the plaintiffs in support of their alleged readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract.