Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)Section 73 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Maula Bux vs Union Of India on 19 August, 1969
50.The learned Single Judge has gone by the clause and concluded
that in view of the Clause-13, the plaintiffs are not entitled to sue for refund
of advance. No doubt, there is a breach on the part of the plaintiffs but,
unfortunately, we find that the judgment in Maula Baux Vs. Union of India
and Kailash Nath Associates Vs. Delhi Development Authority were not
35/45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.a.No.182 of 2020
brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. In fact, we do not find
even a reference to Section 74 of the Contract Act in the judgment of the
Trial Court.
M/S. Kailash Nath Associates vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 9 January, 2015
50.The learned Single Judge has gone by the clause and concluded
that in view of the Clause-13, the plaintiffs are not entitled to sue for refund
of advance. No doubt, there is a breach on the part of the plaintiffs but,
unfortunately, we find that the judgment in Maula Baux Vs. Union of India
and Kailash Nath Associates Vs. Delhi Development Authority were not
35/45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.a.No.182 of 2020
brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. In fact, we do not find
even a reference to Section 74 of the Contract Act in the judgment of the
Trial Court.
Chand Rani vs Kamal Rani on 18 December, 1992
49.Both the decisions referred to by Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned
Senior Counsel for the respondents, did not consider the scope of Section 73
or 74 of the Contract Act. While the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chand
Rani Vs. Kamal Rani was concerned with the issue as to whether the time
is the essence of contract for sale of immovable property, in Deshraj -Vs-
Rohtash Singh, the Hon'ble supreme Court was concerned with the grant of
refund of advance in the absence of a prayer in terms of Section 22 of the
Specific Relief Act. The question of refund of earnest money or the penal
nature of the clause providing for the forfeiture of money was not gone into
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in both those cases.
V.Prabhakara vs Basavaraj K. (Dead) By Lr. on 7 October, 2021
Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in V.Prabhakara Vs. Basavaraj and Another reported in
(2022) 1 SCC 115 to contend that the Appellate Court while exercising the
power under Section 96 should keep in mind the views of the Trial Court
and mere substitution of views is not permissible.
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 22 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Roshan Lal vs The Delhi Cloth And General Mills ... on 10 August, 1910
“6.Forfeiture of earnest money under a contract for sale
30/45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.a.No.182 of 2020
of property-movable or immovable--if the amount is
reasonable, does not fall within S. 74. That has been decided in
several cases: Kunwar Chiranjit Singh v. Hat Swarup
(1);Roshan Lal v. The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company
Ltd., Delhi(2); Muhammad Habibullah v. Muhammad Shafi(3);