Advanced Search Results
M/S. Kabari Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shivnath Shroff and Others
Supreme Court of India
Dec-01-1995
CivilContract
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 6 and 47, Rule 1 and 18; Urban Land and Ceiling Act; Constitution of India - Article 136
AIR1996SC742; JT1995(8)SC539; 1995(6)SCALE835; (1996)1SCC690; [1997]1SCR538; [1995]Supp6SCR77
Appeal No. 619 of 1992 arising out of Suit No. 531 of 1981 instituted in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The appeals arising out of Special leave petition (Civil) Nos. 6254 and … plaintiffs respondents Shivnath Shroff and others filed the said Suit No. 531 of 1981 for specific performance of contract in the High Court and on the prayer of the plaintiffs to amend the body of the plaint
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskMadhya Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Limited, a Fully Sta ...
Mumbai
Feb-08-2005
CivilContract
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Sections 91, 92, 92(1), 92(2), 92(3), 94 and 94(4); Limitation Act, 1963; Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 - Rule 77F; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 37, Rule 3(5)
AIR2005Bom318; 2005(4)ALLMR281
that the issues raised by the Corporation in its application filed under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 were frivolous and the Co-operative Court by its cryptic reasoning failed in gross errors in … the opponent-Corporation, with interest at the rate of 16% per annum as agreed at the time of initial contract between the parties. The said dispute was filed on or about 20.11.2002, as the Corporation allegedly failed to
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskNalini Nath Mitra and anr. Vs. BepIn Behari Das and ors.
Kolkata
Apr-27-1956
ContractCivil
Specific Relief Act, 1877 - Section 15; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Section 11 - Order 41, Rule 33
AIR1956Cal525
Privy Council appeal pending between the parties, is not a final decision within the meaning of Section 11, Civil P. C. In our judgment the present case cannot be covered by the authority of the Privy Council … fixed at one year from the date of the agreement but the defendants later on resiled from the contract and did not execute the necessary lease although requested in that behalf on several occasions by the plaintiff.
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. the State Trading Corporation of In ...
Delhi
Mar-17-2006
ContractCivil
Companies Act, 1956; Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 182, 185, 186, 187, 188 and 222; Import Trade Control Rules; Import Trade Control Regulations; Export Control Orders
AIR2006Delhi276; III(2006)BC405; 2006(2)CTLJ34(Del); 128(2006)DLT319; 2006(89)DRJ207
to the Government of IndiaCopy for information and guidance to:-1. Shri Mahesh Prasad, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Civil Supplies & Co-operation, Deptt. of Commerce, New Delhi.2. Shri B.C. Malhotra, Group Executive, State Trading Corporation of India, … appointed by the Government of India under the Export Control Order. The defendant Corporation used to enter into Contract with foreign purchasers for sale and export of the Indian cement and to meet its commitment used to
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskSanghamitra Ghosh Vs. Rashmoni Gupta and ors.
Kolkata
Jul-19-2007
CivilContract
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 230A; ;Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Section 33; ;Limitation Act - Section 3; ;Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 8, Rule 10 - Order 9, Rule 13 - Order 43, Rule 1
2007(4)CHN538
6th April, 2004 passed in the suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) 3rd Court, Alipore, 24 - Parganas, ex parte. The appellant was unsuccessful in getting the … that he has performed or has always been continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In this case, he contends after entering into agreement the plaintiff was put into possession, nothing was left
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskNew Howrah Transport Company Vs. Metal Box India Ltd. and anr.
Chennai
Jan-30-2004
ContractCivil
Carriers Act, 1865 - Sections 8; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 34
AIR2004Mad294
wherein it is held by the Full Bench of the Apex Court regarding the territorial jurisdiction of a Civil Court in a suit for damages against the Corporation, in the following manner (para 13) :--'Where the Corporation … the plaint, it would specifically be submitted that under clause 18 of the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between parties at Calcutta on 30-7-1982, the Court in Delhi alone shall have the jurisdiction to
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskShiv Kumar Saxena and ors. Vs. Manishchand Sinha and anr.
Madhya Pradesh
Aug-02-2004
CivilContract
Stamp Act, 1899 - Schedule - Article 23; Madhya Pradesh Stamp (Amdendment) Act
2004(4)MPHT475
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, C.J.1. The appellants fifed Civil Suit No. 6-B/2001 before the Fifth Additional District Judge, Chhindwara for recovery of Rs. 1,40,000/- with interest. The … only when the Court passed an order appointing the vendor as Appointee, it was at best a contingent contract, which would only attract stamp duty of Rs. 10/- under Article 5(b) of Schedule 1-A to the Stamp
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskGomi Bai and ors. Vs. Uma Rastogi and anr.
Andhra Pradesh
Dec-29-2004
ContractCivil
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 7, Rules 1 and 2 - Order 8, Rule 5(3); Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 15, 19, 20 and 22(1); Transfer of Property Act - Sections 54; Evidence Act - Sections 102
2005(2)ALD631
she comply with the requirements as per Form Nos. 47 and 48 of First Schedule of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and that the appellant failed to issue any notice of demand to vendors before filing … 1 to 3 obtained permission dated 17.2.1982 from ULC authorities, but later developed evil intention to resile from contract and started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. The appellant received notice from Special Officer and Competent
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskVishwanath Maharudra Matkari Vs. Jan Mohammed and anr.
Mumbai
Aug-08-1979
ContractCivil
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 21, Rule 92; Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 65 and 72
AIR1982Bom30; ILR1981Bom1222
what was his remedy? Whether his remedy lay only within the machinery provided by Order 21 of the Civil R. C. Or whether an independent suit was maintainable. (4) What would be the nature of the result? … way of an independent suit even against the decree-holder on the principles analogous to Section 65 of the Contract Act, He, therefore, held that a suit by auction-purchaser for recovery of the purchase money from the decree-holder
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskSuraj Singh and anr. Vs. Sohan Lal and ors.
Allahabad
Jul-10-1980
ContractCivil
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 16; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 20, Rule 4 - Order 41, Rule 31
AIR1981All330
impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit but is a respondent in this appeal. The IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Meerut, who tried the suit, granted a decree as prayed for by the plaintiffs. The Additional District … come to this Court.2. The plaintiff alleged that through an agreement dated January 17, 1967, the first defendant contracted to convey the plots in question to them for a consideration of Rs. 10368.75 out of which a
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »