Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)Madamsetty Satyanarayana vs G. Yellogi Rao And Two Others on 24 November, 1964
In Satyanarayana v. Yelloji Rao , it has been categorically stated that mere delay is not sufficient to deny specific performance unless there is a waiver or abandonment. But in this case, there was no waiver at all at any point of time nor had the plaintiff respondent abandoned its right. On the contrary, it is the other way about. If there was nothing to suggest in the conduct of the plaintiff respondent implying an abandonment, the contract will have to be enforced. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Habibullah Badsha that because of the failure to obtain exemption in the first instance, the contract had fallen to the ground. The plaintiff-respondent has been trying its level best to obtain the exemption from payment of stamp duty notwithstanding its failure to obtain it in the first instance which was because of the language of Exs. P1 and P3, to which we have already made a reference.
The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976
Section 30 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Dodla Rami Reddi And Ors. vs Devireddi Pattabhirami Reddi ... on 6 May, 1936
In a series of cases inadequacy of consideration, if it is grossly low, had been held to be a good ground to deny the equitable relief of specific performance vide Rangaswami Gounder v. Periasami Gounder , Devireddi Gandhisan v. Ayysami (1979) 1 M.L.J. 270 : (1979) 92 L.W. 146 and Dodlarami Reddi v. Devireddi Pattabhirami Reddi 71 M.L.J. 599 : (1936) 44 L.W. 749 : A.I.R. 1937 Mad. 124. For all these reasons it is contended that the judgment and decree of the learned Judge has to be set aside.
Ramakrishna Naidu vs Palaniappa Chettiar on 9 March, 1962
17. On this aspect, Mr. Habibulla Badsha relies on the rulings in Ramakrishna v. Palaniappa , Ramireddi v. Pattabhiramareddi 71 M.L.J. 599 : A.I.R. 1937 Mad.
1