Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)Rathnavathi & Anr vs Kavita Ganashamdas on 29 October, 2014
12. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff cited the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rathnavathi and others v. Kavita Ganashamdas reported in (2015) 5 SCC 223, and contended that cause of action for the two suits are different and therefore, the plea of bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is not applicable. In the above Judgment, it has been held as follows :
Satyadhyan Ghosal And Others vs Sm. Deorajin Debi And Another on 20 April, 1960
In Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi, reported in AIR 1960 SC 941, this Court said :
Bhanu Kumar Jain vs Archana Kumar & Anr on 17 December, 2004
In Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar & another reported in 2005-1-LW-582, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :
Vinod Seth vs Devinder Bajaj & Anr on 5 July, 2010
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above Judgment held that the alleged agreement is vague and incomplete and requires further agreement on several minute details and further obligations under contract cannot be barred to the statutory liability. On those grounds the agreement in that case was held not enforceable.
Ashok Kumar Jaiswal vs Ashim Kumar Kar on 13 February, 2014
21. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff cited the Full Bench Judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Ashok Kumar Jaiswal v. Ashim Kumar Kar reported in (2014) 4 CTC 369 and contended that the suit at the instance of the owner as well as the developer is maintainable if the developer is able to establish the requirement of law, viz., Section 14(3) (c) of the Specific Relief Act. In the said Judgment, it has been held as follows :
Gobind Ram vs Gian Chand on 27 September, 2000
35. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff cited the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Gobind Ram v. Gian Chand reported in (2000) 7 SCC 548 and contended that specific performance is to be granted to the developer when the vendor attempts to wriggle out of the contract only because of escalation of real estate prices. In the above Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 14 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
M/S Virgo Industries (Eng) P.Ltd vs M/S Venturetech Solutions P.Ltd on 7 September, 2012
9. The requirement for application of the provisions contained in Order 2 Rule 2 (2) and (3) is that the cause of action in the latter suit must be the same as in the first suit. In Virgo Industries (Eng.) (P) Ltd., v. Venturetech Solutions (P) Ltd., reported in (2013) 1 SCC 625, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to the meaning of cause of action has held as follows :