Showing : 171-180 of 318 Results

PATNA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34-- Suit for declaration - Sale deeds - Not bona fide - Proof - Total area of plot 4 katha 11 dhur - One of the descendants of a co-sharer who had only 1/3rd share in that plot sold entire 4 katha 10 dhur - Held, there appears to be no perversity in concurrent findings of both courts below discarding..........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7(iv)(c), Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34-- Declaratory suit - Ad valorem court fee - Payment of - Plaintiff pleaded that he did not execute sale deed, but he sought declaration regarding entire sale deed being invalid - Held, plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court fee on entire sale consideration recited in sale deed - However, if..........
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34, 37, 38-- Declaration and possession - Boundaries given in sale deed not correct - It is not permissible to lay a claim seeking relief of title and recovery of possession on the basis of such sale deed without seeking relief of rectification of boundaries...........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34-- Suit for declaration - Ingredients : (i) the plaintiff must be a person entitled to any legal character or to any right as to property; (ii) the defendant must be a person denying, or interested to deny, the plaintiff's title to such character or right; (iii) the declaration sued for must be a..........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34, 39-- Suit for declaration that sale deed is illegal and void ab initio and for mandatory injunction directing defendant to remove construction made therein - The relief available to plaintiff was of declaration and possession - Held, suit for declaration and mandatory injunction is not maintainable...........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34, Contract Act, 1872, Section 17, Arbitration Act, 1940, Section 32,33, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34-- Award - Allegedly obtained by fraud and misrepresentation - Setting aside of - Appellant seeking declaration that award was null and void and also seeking consequential relief of setting aside mutation based on such decrees and possession of lands - Held, Ss.32 & 33 of Arbitration Act not a bar..........
KERALA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Section 34, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 14-- Matter provided in SARFAESI Act - Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum - Held, the CDRF cannot grant any relief against measures taken by a Bank or Financial Institution under the SARFAESI Act - The jurisdiction of the CDRF to deal with matters provided for in the SARFAESI Act is expressly excluded -..........
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34-- Declaration of title - Suit for - Limitation - Held, u/Art. 65 of Limitation Act, suit for declaration of title can be filed when there is a cloud over title and limitation is 12 years...........
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 34, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16-- Suit for specific performance - Interest - Effective date of payment - Trail Court having held that plaintiff is not entitled to relief of specific performance has ordered refund of Rs.9,55,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization - Held, interest ought to..........
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38, 34, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 14, Rule 1-- Suit for permanent injunction - Issue regarding title not framed - On the basis of pleadings of defendant in his written statement issue was framed that as to whether plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land - No challenge was made to the validity of sale deed in favour of plaintiff executed..........

Showing : 171-180 of 318 Results