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

2004 Supreme(AP) 223

P.S.NARAYANA
Mohd. Abdul Hakeem – Appellant
Versus
Naiyaz Ahmed – Respondent


P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) SRI Wasim Ahmed Khan representing the appellants had pointed out that on 8-1-2003 this Court admitted the Second Appeal on the following grounds: 1. Whether under Section 2 (d) (e) of the Contract Act, an agreement which is not signed by the vendee, but only signed by the vendor is a concluded contract or not ? 2. Whether under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, a concluded contract which is not signed by the vendee can be a complete contract, and whether a suit on the basis of an unconcluded contract can be filed for specific performance of the same ?

( 2 ) IN C. M. P. No. 24829/2002 on the self-same day, an order of status quo was granted and the Second Appeal was directed to be posted immediately after Sankranti vacation. The learned Counsel also pointed out that apart from the substantial questions of law referred to supra, several other substantial questions of law also are involved and the said questions are as hereunder : 1. Whether the Judgment and decree of the appellate Court are not vitiated for non-framing of Points for consideration in accordance with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure? 2. Whether the suit as framed is mainta











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