SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 2

G.T.NANAVATI, K.RAMASWAMY
T. L. Muddukrishana – Appellant
Versus
Lalitha Ramchandra Rao – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, made on 29.5.1996 in CRP No. 2246/93.

3. The admitted facts are that the appellants and the respondent entered into an agreement on March 16, 1989 for sale of plot of land bearing No. 114/8 situated at Peenya Industrial Suburb II Stage, Peenya Village, Bangalore for a consideration of Rs. 64 lakhs. The date for the performance of the contract was fixed as May 28, 1989. The appellants issued notice on October 2, 1989 calling upon the respondent to comply with the conditions mentioned under the agreement, namely, to obtain Income-tax clearance certificate and from the Urban Ceiling Authority permitting the respondent to alienate the property to the appellants. The respondent had issued a notice on November 6, 1989 repudiating the contract though the execution thereof was admitted. The appellants then filed a suit for mandatory injunction on April 21, 1992 directing the respondent to comply with the requirements as mentioned in the agreement. While the suit was pending, the appellants made an application on November 5, 1992 under Order VI, Rule 17 of t















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top