VALMIKI J.MEHTA
D. C. Khosla (Deceased) Through Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kumar Jain – Respondent
Valmiki J. Mehta, J—This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellants/plaintiff against the impugned Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 10.2.2004 whereby the first appellate court instead of granting specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 30.11.1978 only granted compensation to the appellants/plaintiff as stated in the agreement to sell. The original plaintiff has expired pendente lite and is now represented by his legal heirs. Appellants are aggrieved because in spite of holding that there did exist an agreement to sell, there was breach of contract on behalf of the defendant/respondent, time was held not to be of the essence of the contract, and, the plaintiff had proved his readiness and willingness, yet, the first appellate court instead of granting specific performance only granted compensation. It is argued by the appellants that the conclusion of the first appellate court is based upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dadarao and Another vs. Ramrao and Others (1999) 8 SCC 416: [1999] 9 Supreme 103. but the ratio of this judgment in the case of Dadarao (supra
Dadarao and Another vs. Ramrao and Others (1999) 8 SCC 416: [1999] 9 Supreme 103. (Para 1)
P.D’Souza vs. Shondrilo Naidu (2004) 6 SCC 649: [2004] 6 Supreme 28. (Para 1)
M.L. Devender Singh and Others vs. Syed Khaja (1973) 2 SCC 515. (Para 1)
Sudhir Engineering Company vs. Nitco Roadways Ltd 1995 (34) DRJ 86. (Para 9)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.