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

2006 Supreme(SC) 495

S.B.SINHA, P.P.NAOLEKAR
Panchanan Dhara – Appellant
Versus
Monmatha Nath Maity (dead) thr. L. Rs. – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

What is the period of limitation for filing a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1964? What is the effect of extension or conduct of the parties on the start of the limitation period under Article 54, and when does the period begin to run if time for performance is extended or varied? What is the validity and enforceability of an agreement for sale executed by directors of a company under Sections 46 and 48 of the Companies Act, 1956, including whether absence of a formal resolution affects enforceability and the role of company seal?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the period of limitation for filing a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1964?

What is the effect of extension or conduct of the parties on the start of the limitation period under Article 54, and when does the period begin to run if time for performance is extended or varied?

What is the validity and enforceability of an agreement for sale executed by directors of a company under Sections 46 and 48 of the Companies Act, 1956, including whether absence of a formal resolution affects enforceability and the role of company seal?


JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 29th January, 1998 passed by the Calcutta High Court in Second Appeal No. 887 of 1991 affirming the judgment and order dated 29th June, 1990 passed by the learned Asstt. District Judge, Ghatal, District Midnapore, West Bengal in Title Appeal No. 74 of 1989 whereby and whereunder an appeal against the judgment dated 31st August, 1989 passed by the learned Munsif, Ghatal, District Midnapore, West Bengal in Title Suit No. 133 of 1985 was dismissed.

2. The basic fact of the matter is not much in dispute Respondent No. 2 herein (the company) is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The said company held and possessed the suit property situated in the District of Midnapur in the State of West Bengal. It intended to sell the said property. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 having came to know of the said intention on the part of the company entered into an agreement for sale thereof, wherefor a sum of Rs. 6000/- was paid to the Company by way of advance. The balance amount was to be paid within a period of fourteen months. As the title of the Respondent No. 2 in respect of the said prope

























































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