Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (2.90 seconds)
Devenderjeet Singh Sethi vs Om Prakash Arora & Ors on 1 July, 2019 cites

M/S Hotz Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Dr. Ravi Singh (Since Deceased Through ... on 28 February, 2018

Similar views have been expressed in several other decisions such as M/s Hotz Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Dr. Ravi Singh, 2018 SCC Online (Del) 7618 and Manohar Lal Khetrapal and Ors. vs. Hari Chand and Ors., MANU/DE/2934/2018. In the present case, the Plaintiff has tried to show its readiness and willingness on the basis of the copies of CS(OS) 2303/2010 Page 23 of 33 three demand drafts of equal amounts drawn in favor of three Defendants totaling to Rs. 9,92,50,000/-. This according to him was the balance consideration amount payable. Mr. Arun Vohra, Learned counsel for the Plaintiff argued that firstly the details of three drafts were furnished to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and later the photocopies of the same were also sent to them. He argued that the same is undisputed as per reply dated 30th October 2010 (Ex. PW1/13) and further, in Ex. PW 1/18, wherein Defendants admit having received the details of the three drafts. Later in Ex. PW 1/21 Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 also admit having received the photocopies of the three demand drafts. He argues that since Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were not willing to complete their part of the obligations under the contract, they raised a false plea of Benami transaction to wriggle out of the contract. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog has strenuously argued that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were well entitled to refuse the tender under the drafts. Firstly, because the amount offered was falling short by Rs. 45 lacs. Secondly, because the demand drafts were drawn from the account of a third party to the transaction namely, Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Ltd. Lastly, Mr. Nandrajog also referred to the provisions of the Benami Transaction Act, 1988 and urged that going forward with the transaction would have been unlawful as the Defendants could not have accepted the payment that was not coming from the account of the intending purchaser. Countering the argument of Mr. Nandrajog, Mr. Arun Vohra learned counsel for the Plaintiff has argued that there is no prohibition in law for a third party to make the payment on behalf of the Plaintiff. Pertinently, since the Plaintiff was having financial arrangement and dealings with Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Ltd., the payment under the demand draft at his behest cannot be CS(OS) 2303/2010 Page 24 of 33 termed as a Benami transaction.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 31 - V J Mehta - Full Document

N.P. Thirugnanam (D) By Lrs vs Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao & Ors on 12 July, 1995

21. Thus, tender of amount less than what was actually due, exhibits that the Plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. Since the Plaintiff has not performed its obligation in conformity with the terms of the contract, it is manifest that the Plaintiff was not ready and willing to complete the transaction. However, the Court in the succeeding paras has also evaluated the conduct and other facets of the case to determine whether the Plaintiff was genuinely interested and ready to complete the transaction. Readiness to perform the obligations by the CS(OS) 2303/2010 Page 21 of 33 intending purchaser is a critical factor that needs to be proved by the party who is seeking a decree of specific performance. The intending purchaser must necessarily prove his financial capacity which is a pre-requisite for seeking specific performance as per Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Readiness has been understood, interpreted and explained by the Supreme Court in several decisions to mean the „financial capacity of the intending purchaser'. The intending purchaser must have the financial means and capacity to pay the balance sale consideration. The Supreme Court in N.P. Thirugnanam (D) by L.Rs. v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao (1995) 5 SCC 115 held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 486 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next