Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.35 seconds)Section 20 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
M/S J.P.Builders & Anr vs A.Ramadas Rao & Anr on 22 November, 2010
Further reliance has been placed upon a
judgment reported in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 429 in the
case of J.P. Builders and another versus A. Ramadas Rao and
another which says that merely because contract rests on
settlement of loan and however title deeds of the plaintiff from the
banks are not impossible events and as such contracts are not
contingent contracts.
S. Kesari Hanuman Goud vs Anjum Jehan & Ors on 10 April, 2013
4) has not been notarise through Consular General
as per Section 4 of Notaries Act. The power of Attorney holder has
adduced evidence as PW 6 relating to readiness and willingness
which he is not competent for the reasons that power of attorney
was issued in his favour on 28.02.1996 therefore, he is estopped
from adducing any evidence relating to any matter of contract
Patna High Court FA No.346 of 2003 dt.28-06-2018
17/22
prior to 28.02.1996. Further he was not competent to adduce
evidence on the point of readiness and willingness on behalf of
Principal. Reliance can be placed upon a judgment reported in
2013 (3) PLJR (SC) 19 in the case of S. Kesari Hanuman Goud
Vs. Anjum Jehan & Ors. (para 13) and further reliance has been
placed on the judgment reported in (2010) 10 Supeme Court
Cases 512 in the case of Man Kunwar Vs. Hartar Singh
Sangha. In this case the principal has not been examined and
therefore, the question of readiness and willingness has not been
proved at all which is sine quo non in a case of Specific
Performance of Contract. Further adverse inference must be drawn
as the plaintiff has not been examined. Agreement shows that the
defendant was in urgent need of money and the plaintiff did not
show her readiness and willingness even after receipt of notice
dated 06.09.1993 and after 2 and ½ years she awoke and sent
notice and returned the draft. The plaintiff should be ready with
the consideration money till the filing of the suit. Here, the
plaintiff has shown that she was ready with money through bank
statement till December 1993, whereas the suit itself was filed in
the year 1996.
Man Kaur(Dead)By Lrs vs Hartar Singh Sangha on 5 October, 2010
4) has not been notarise through Consular General
as per Section 4 of Notaries Act. The power of Attorney holder has
adduced evidence as PW 6 relating to readiness and willingness
which he is not competent for the reasons that power of attorney
was issued in his favour on 28.02.1996 therefore, he is estopped
from adducing any evidence relating to any matter of contract
Patna High Court FA No.346 of 2003 dt.28-06-2018
17/22
prior to 28.02.1996. Further he was not competent to adduce
evidence on the point of readiness and willingness on behalf of
Principal. Reliance can be placed upon a judgment reported in
2013 (3) PLJR (SC) 19 in the case of S. Kesari Hanuman Goud
Vs. Anjum Jehan & Ors. (para 13) and further reliance has been
placed on the judgment reported in (2010) 10 Supeme Court
Cases 512 in the case of Man Kunwar Vs. Hartar Singh
Sangha. In this case the principal has not been examined and
therefore, the question of readiness and willingness has not been
proved at all which is sine quo non in a case of Specific
Performance of Contract. Further adverse inference must be drawn
as the plaintiff has not been examined. Agreement shows that the
defendant was in urgent need of money and the plaintiff did not
show her readiness and willingness even after receipt of notice
dated 06.09.1993 and after 2 and ½ years she awoke and sent
notice and returned the draft. The plaintiff should be ready with
the consideration money till the filing of the suit. Here, the
plaintiff has shown that she was ready with money through bank
statement till December 1993, whereas the suit itself was filed in
the year 1996.
Jugraj Singh And Another vs Labh Singh And Others on 28 November, 1994
Reliance can be placed upon a judgment reported in
AIR 1995 Supreme Court 945 in the case of Jugraj Singh an
another v. Labh Singh and others (paragraph 3). The learned
Patna High Court FA No.346 of 2003 dt.28-06-2018
18/22
court below has rightly dismissed the suit. The contract itself is a
contingent contract and the event which was to happen would not
happen therefore, the contract would not be enforced by law. The
conduct of the plaintiff clearly shows that she was not willing to
perform her part of contract until and unless clear vacant
possession be given which was beyond the competence of
defendant no. 1 (since deceased). According to learned counsel for
the respondents there is no merit in this appeal and the same is fit
to be dismissed.
Section 16 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Notaries Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Section 31 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta vs New Era Fabrics P.Ltd.& Ors on 8 July, 2015
Reliance placed on AIR 2015
Supreme Court 3796 in the case of Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta
versus New Era Fabrics Private Limited and others is
distinguishable on fact. Paragraph 2 of that judgment will clearly
clarify that in that case a condition was put on fulfillment of which
deed would be executed. No such condition was in the present
case. Moreover, certain conditions, as per terms of the agreement,
have to be complied with by the defendants, which were not
complied with.