Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M. M. SATHAYE
Nitin Marutrao Kale – Appellant
Versus
Manikrao Bajirao Malgunde – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.M. SATHAYE, J
1. Learned Counsel for the parties were finally heard on 02/12/2024 and 16/12/2024 and the appeals are kept today for passing order.
BACKGROUND
2. These Appeals arise from two suits filed by plaintiff/s for similar reliefs against two different sets of Defendants. The Appellants are Plaintiffs and the Respondents are Defendants in both the suits. The parties are hereinafter referred to in their original capacity in suits.
3. Appeal from Order No. 1057 of 2023 (AO/1057/2023) is arising out of impugned order dated 02/11/2023 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baramati below Exhibit-5 in Special Civil Suit No. 192 of 2021 (SpCS/192/2021). This suit is filed by the Appellants and one Mr. Sangram Jaywantrao Gade. Similarly, Appeal from Order No. 99 of 2024 (AO/99/2024) is filed challenging the impugned order dated 02/11/2023 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baramati below Exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 196 of 2021 (SpCS/196/2021). This suit is filed by Appellant and same Mr. Sangram Jaywantrao Gade. By the said impugned orders, the Applications of the Appellants seeking interim injunction restraining the Respondents from creatin
None of the cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The list does not contain language such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "disapproved" that typically signals a negative treatment or invalidation of a precedent. Therefore, based solely on the provided information, there are no cases that can be conclusively identified as bad law.
[Followed / Affirmed]
None explicitly indicated. The descriptions suggest these are considered good law or at least unchallenged within the context provided.
[Distinguished / Clarified / Applied]
Madhukar Nivrutti Jagtap VS Pramilabai Chandulal Parandekar - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 850: This case discusses principles regarding the nature of documents, specific performance, and the court’s approach to evidence and transactions post-filing. It appears to be a guiding decision on how courts should interpret documents and handle specific performance suits, likely followed or applied in subsequent cases, but no explicit indication of treatment is given.
Boramma VS Krishna Gowda - 2000 7 Supreme 80: Emphasizes proper appreciation of evidence and consistency in witness testimony. Likely used as a standard reference, but no indication of subsequent treatment.
Azhar Sultana VS B. Rajamani - 2009 2 Supreme 262: States that continuous readiness and willingness are conditions precedent for relief under Section 16(c). This appears to be a legal principle that would be followed in relevant cases.
Swarnam Ramachandran VS Aravacode Chakungal Jayapalan. - 2004 6 Supreme 385: Clarifies that time is presumed not to be of the essence in contracts relating to immovable property unless proven otherwise. This is a standard legal presumption.
A. Kanthamani VS Nasreen Ahmed - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 213: Discusses the requirements for a suit for specific relief under Section 16(c), referencing the importance of proof of readiness and willingness. It also notes that the Supreme Court is generally reluctant to reappreciate evidence in second appeals, indicating adherence to lower courts' findings unless there is perversity.
Jagan Singh VS Dhanwanti - 2012 1 Supreme 262: Provides legal principles regarding property rights of widows, lis pendens, and the effect of appeals on suits, which are likely considered settled law.
All cases seem to be presented as established legal principles or observations rather than as decisions that have been overruled or criticized. Without explicit language indicating treatment or subsequent judicial treatment, their current status remains uncertain; they are assumed to be valid unless contradicted elsewhere.
The list does not specify whether these cases have been questioned, distinguished, or overruled in later decisions, so their treatment remains ambiguous based solely on this data.
The court emphasized that failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations justifies the denial of interim injunctions in specific performance cases.
In contracts for the sale of immovable property, time is generally not of the essence unless explicitly stated, and parties must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their obligations.
The appellate court must respect the trial court's discretion in granting injunctions unless shown to be arbitrary or perverse.
The appellate court must respect the trial court's discretion in granting injunctions unless shown to be arbitrary or perverse, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny of such orders.
The court emphasized the importance of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss when considering the grant of injunction in property disputes.
The court emphasized the need to consider the maintainability of the suit and the balance of convenience before granting an injunction. It also highlighted the relevance of the time fixed for perform....
Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1982, the rights of the appellants in the suit for Specific Performance against the Immovable property is protected under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Ac....
A judicial decision containing the principle, which forms an authoritative element termed as ratio decidendli. An interim order which does not finally and conclusively decide an issue which cannot be....
A petitioner can be granted temporary injunction to prevent the alienation of property during the pendency of a suit for specific performance while establishing possession under a registered agreemen....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
