Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.33 seconds)Bijai Bahadur And Ors. vs Shri Shiv Kumar And Anr. on 21 February, 1985
23. Regarding his readiness and willingness, the specific
contentions of the plaintiff is that, the total sale consideration is
Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only)
and he paid Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) on the date
of the Sale Agreement, as advance. Further, he was ever ready to
pay the balance sale consideration on the date of execution of the
Sale Deed and to get the Sale Deed in his favour. As there were
tenants in the suit schedule premises, 30 months time was fixed to
get the full fledged Sale Deed. That apart, to show his financial
capacity to pay the balance sale consideration, the plaintiff has
produced the certified copies of his Bank Statements marked at
Ex.P.6 to P.12. This being the state of affair, the decision relied by
the learned counsel for the defendant in the case of Bajai
Bahadur and others v. Shri Shiv Kumar and another cited
above does not come to the aid of the defendant.
Sardar Singh vs Smt. Krishna Devi And Another on 21 November, 1990
Such
being the case, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sardar Singh v. Smt.Krishna Devi and another
cited above relied by the learned counsel for the defendant does
not come in the way of this case on hand.
Section 12 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
B.Santoshamma. vs D.Sarala. on 18 September, 2020
In the case of B.Santoshamma and others Vs.
D.Sarala and others relied by the learned counsel for the plaintiff
it was held that, by virtue of amendment of Section 10 of the
Specific Relief Act, the relief of specific performance of contract is
no more discretionary relief and the court is obliged to enforce the
specific performance of contract. But it is not in dispute that, the
Specific Relief Act came to be amended in the year 2018 and from
that day onwards, the Amendment Act came into force. But in the
instant case, the alleged Sale Agreement came to be executed in
the year 2003. Hence the amended provisions would not come in
19 O.S.No.7174/2006
the way of this suit. As such, the relief claimed in the suit is still
continued as discretionary.