Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.55 seconds)
Sh. R.C. Anand vs Sh. Joginder Singh on 19 September, 2022 cites

R C Anand vs Joginder Singh & Ors on 26 July, 2019

5. On 13.03.2007, according to plaintiff, he had got a legal notice issued, through his counsel, to defendant no. 1 for fixing any future date, as per his convenience, for execution of the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and although, the aforesaid legal notice sent to the defendant No. 1 through registered AD and courier had been duly served upon him, however, the defendant no. 1 did not either give any reply to the legal notice nor has he contacted the plaintiff. When the plaintiff tried to contact the defendant No. 1 through some common friends, he was informed that defendant no. 1 shall not execute any document/Sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of plaintiff nor shall he return the earnest money. Thus, according to him, the intention of defendant no. 1 became dishonest due to surge in the price of the suit property and hence, he has failed to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of plaintiff despite the fact that the CS DJ No. 9771/2016 R.C.Anand v. Joginder Singh & Ors.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - P Jalan - Full Document

Puran Ram vs Bhaguram & Anr on 29 February, 2008

63. Although, while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puran Ram v. Bhaguram's case supra, it has been sought to be contended by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that description of the suit property can be amended by the plaintiff in the agreement dated 04.12.2006 at any stage, however, in my considered opinion, plaintiff can't derive the benefit from the legal propositions laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment and the judgment in Pratibha Singh's case supra, in view of the fact that he has failed to amend the plaint so as to incorporate a prayer for rectification of description of the suit property in the agreement Ex. PW-1/2 and his application for amendment of the plaint and not seeking rectification of the agreement has already been dismissed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 20.02.2019 and the CM(M) 1103/2019 preferred by him against the aforesaid order before Hon'ble Delhi High Court was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.07.2019. The aforesaid order of Hon'ble High Court dated 26.07.2019 has not been further challenged by the plaintiff and hence, the same has attained finality.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 95 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

A.Kanthamani vs Nasreen Ahmed on 6 March, 2017

65. There is another reason for declining the specific performance of agreement to sell Ex. PW-1/2 in favour of plaintiff i.e. in my considered opinion, the plaintiff has also failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. No doubt, in view of the authoritative pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanthmani v. Nasreen Ahmed(supra) and Azhar Sultana v. B. Rajamani (supra) the plaintiff was not bound to keep the entire amount of balance sale consideration ready with him to show his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the obligation under the contract, however, he has even failed to prove that he had made any alternative arrangement for the same. During his cross-examination dated 15.03.2011, plaintiff has admitted that he was a pensioner drawing a pension of Rs. 15,000/- as pension. Although, he had tried to take a plea that the balance sale consideration was available with him out of sale proceeds of one property situated at Bahadurgarh allegedly sold by him for a consideration of Rs. 21,00,000/- in October, 2006, however, he has failed to divulge the details of the said sale transaction including that of the property allegedly sold by him during his further cross-examination.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 65 - A M Sapre - Full Document

Azhar Sultana vs B. Rajamani & Ors on 17 February, 2009

65. There is another reason for declining the specific performance of agreement to sell Ex. PW-1/2 in favour of plaintiff i.e. in my considered opinion, the plaintiff has also failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. No doubt, in view of the authoritative pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanthmani v. Nasreen Ahmed(supra) and Azhar Sultana v. B. Rajamani (supra) the plaintiff was not bound to keep the entire amount of balance sale consideration ready with him to show his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the obligation under the contract, however, he has even failed to prove that he had made any alternative arrangement for the same. During his cross-examination dated 15.03.2011, plaintiff has admitted that he was a pensioner drawing a pension of Rs. 15,000/- as pension. Although, he had tried to take a plea that the balance sale consideration was available with him out of sale proceeds of one property situated at Bahadurgarh allegedly sold by him for a consideration of Rs. 21,00,000/- in October, 2006, however, he has failed to divulge the details of the said sale transaction including that of the property allegedly sold by him during his further cross-examination.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 147 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next