Advanced Search Results

Residency Resorts Private Limited vs United Service Institution of Ind ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

a determinable Agreement which comes to an end by efflux of time on 31.03.2026.12. Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred toas “the Specific Relief Act”) provides that a Contract which is a determinable contract cannot be … for transition and indicating that catering services would be outsourced through competitive bidding. It is stated that on 25.02.2026, the Respondent issued a Request for Proposals inviting third-party bids for catering services. It is stated that the

Vasantha and Others Vs. M. Senguttuvan

Court : Chennai

Subject : property

Acts : Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- Sections 5, 9 and 16; Transfer of Property Act, 1881 -- Sections 53-A; Tamil Nadu Urban (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 -- Sections 25(1); Indian Limitation Act, 1963

Reported in : 1998(1)CTC186; (1997)IIMLJ576

dismissed. No costs in the C.M.Ps. Property - transfer of property - Sections 5, 9 and 16 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1881, Section 25 (1) of Tamil Nadu Urban (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,

P. Purushottam Reddy and anr. Vs. Pratap Steels Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : ContractProperty

Acts : Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 151 - Order 41, Rules 23, 23A, 25 and 27(1); Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 16 and 28; Transfer of Property Act - Sections 52

Reported in : AIR2002SC771; 2002(2)ALT14(SC); 2002(4)AWC2364(SC); JT2002(5)SC5; (2002)2MLJ99(SC); 2002(1)SCALE447; (2002)2SCC686; [2002]1SCR586

Subsequent to the passing of the decree the judgment-debtor had moved an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to have the contract rescinded for failure of the decree-holder to comply with his obligations under the decree … a preliminary issue without deciding other issues and the finding on preliminary issue is reversed in appeal. Rule 25 applies when the appellate court notices an omission on the part of the trial court to frame or

Modi Rubber Ltd. Vs. Guardian International Corp.

Court : Delhi

Subject : SICA

Acts : Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 16 and 18; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 82; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 6, 6.1, 9, 11, 17, 18, 19 to 24, 25 and 36; Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 27, 32, 39 and 56; Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 10, 14, 14(1), 16, 21, 23, 41, 41(1) and 42; Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 18, 20 and 41; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 148A - Order 38, Rule 5 - Order 39; LCIA Rules; Constitution of India - Articles 16 and 226

Reported in : 2007(2)ARBLR133(Delhi); 141(2007)DLT822

141 of the judgment, the court held that such agreement is specifically enforceable under Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 inasmuch as the shares in a private limited company would come within the phrase 'not obtainable in the … deal with the procedural aspect of the conduct and arbitration proceedings also refers to agreement by the 'parties'. Section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 refers to default of a 'party' and Sub-section (a) and (b)

Sitac Pvt Ltd vs.banwari Lal Sons Pvt Ltd & Ors

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

that directing specific performance of an Agreement is at the discretion of the Court, Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 before amendment itself states that such discretion is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles … the „Act‟) seeking a direction for the Arbitrator to file the Arbitral Record and the Arbitral Award dated 25.01.2011 before this Court and making the same a Rule of Court, alongwith decree against respondents awarding Rs.5,35,920/- paid

Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Employees Association Vs. Aditya Prata ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : ConstitutionService

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15(1), 15(4), 16(1), 16(4), 21, 32, 121, 124(4), 136, 141, 226, 233 to 237, 309, 335, 341, 342, 342(1), 342(2), 366(24) and 366(25); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 9, 11, 80, 100(4), 100(5), 151, 152 and 153; Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 40, 41, 42 and 44; Societies Registration Act, 1860; Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 - Sections 5 and 11; Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 34; Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950; Suits Valuation Act - Sections 11; Delhi Rent Control Act - Sections 21; Malaya Rubber Regulati

Reported in : 2001(6)ALD582; 2001(6)ALT433

of Subordinate Judge, Parvathipuram.27. There cannot be any doubt that the suit was under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is rather doubtful as to how the suit for mere declaration without any consequential relief was maintainable. … is of Roman Law whereby any citizen could bring such an action in respect of a public delict, 25. In WADHWA'S case (supra), fraud on the Constitution was alleged against State of Bihar in promulgating and repromulgating

Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and ors. Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and or ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 2, Rules 1 and 2 - Order 6, Rules 2(1) and 16 - Order 7, Rules 9 and 11 - Order 10 - Order 25, Rule 4; Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Sections 50, 51 and 80; Constitution of India - Articles 136 and 226; Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 6

Reported in : AIR2004SC1801; 2004(2)ALD115(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)360; 2004(2)AWC1505(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(2)CHN152; 2004(2)SCALE82; (2004)3SCC137; 2004(2)LC817(SC); [2004] 1 SCR 1004

by the owner except by recourse of law. This principle is laid down in Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. That Section says that if any person is dispossessed without his consent from immovable property other wise that … Order 6, Rules 2(1) and 16 - Order 7, Rules 9 and 11 - Order 10 - Order 25, Rule 4; Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Sections 50, 51 and 80; Constitution of India - Articles

H.P. Vedavyasachar Vs. Shivashankara and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Contract

Acts : Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 6; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 18, Rule 12 - Order 41, Rules 23, 23A, 25, 27 and 28

Reported in : 2009(5)ALT47(SC); 2010(1)AWC110(SC); JT2009(15)SC348; 2010(1)MhLJ877(SC); 2009(11)SCALE31; (2009)8SCC231

the learned Counsel for the appellant that the suit was instituted in terms of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is concerned, in our opinion, the same cannot be accepted. Appellant has not only prayed for grant of … could be only in terms of Order XLI Rule 23, Order XLI Rule 23A or Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code. None of the said provisions have any application in the instant case.11. This Court in

Deepak Singla vs.kanta Nagpal

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Tulsian, 206 (2014) DLT443 CS (OS) 2841/2012 Page 8 of 32 Legal Position 16. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 16.1 In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff has to prove a valid sale agreement; the breach … forfeited the advance money of Rs.50,00,000/-. (ii) Three reminders were sent to the plaintiff on his mobile on 25th March, 2010, 01st April, 2010 and 08th April, 2010 but the plaintiff did not respond. The contents of

M. Raja Appar and Ors. Vs. M. Gnanasambandam (deceased by L.R's.)

Court : Chennai

Subject : ArbitrationContract

Acts : Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 12, 12(1), 12(4) and 14(1); Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 25 and 29; Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 20 and 33; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 7, Rule 11

Reported in : AIR2009Mad159; (2009)5MLJ210

for the suit and that the suit is barred by law in view of the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Before getting into details, it is relevant to note that the sole defendant in the suit namely, M. … a contract, as there was no consideration for the same and that therefore the contract was void under Section 25. But such a contention was repelled by the Supreme Court on the ground that it was a family