Sec.22, 27 of Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance of sale agreement - contingent sale agreement - it was specifically mentioned that the sale also be subject to your (defendants) being able to settle with your labour - Trial court dismissed the suit - Appellant court order for refund of amount with interest - Apex court held that The agreement for sale is a contingent agreement depending upon obtaining permission under Section 22 and Section 27 of the ULC Act, property being converted from industrial zone to residential use and settlement with the labour and the labour agreeing to the sale contemplated therein. If any of the conditions are not fulfilled, the respondents were not bound to complete the sale and the appellant was only entitled for return of the money with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of refusal of any of the permission or consent or agreement mentioned above. -2015 S.C.MSK LAW REPORTS



In
the agreement dated 19.10.1977, it was specifically mentioned that the  sale
also be subject to your (defendants) being able to settle with  your  labour
and your labour agreeing to the sale contemplated herein and if you are  not
able to settle with your labour and to get them to agree to the sale  herein
contemplated you will not be bound to complete the sale.  
The moment  labour
do not agree to the sale contemplated, under the terms of the contract,  the
respondents were not bound to complete the  sale.  
The  maximum  period  of
nine (9) months does not mean that once the  labour  had  declined  to  give
their consent for the proposed sale, the contract subsists for a  period  of
nine (9) months and  it  cannot  be  terminated  before  that  period.  
 The
agreement for sale  is  a  contingent  agreement  depending  upon  obtaining
permission under Section 22 and Section 27 of the ULC  Act,  property  being
converted from industrial zone to residential use and  settlement  with  the
labour and the labour agreeing to the sale contemplated therein.  
If any  of
the conditions  are  not  fulfilled,  the  respondents  were  not  bound  to
complete the sale and the appellant was only  entitled  for  return  of  the
money with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of refusal of any  of  the
permission or consent or agreement mentioned above. 
 As in the present  case
we find that the Mill Mazdoor  Sabha  has  not  given  its  consent  to  the
proposed sale, agreement for sale could not  have  been  performed  and  had
ceased.
The appellant is only entitled to refund of the amount  along  with
interest @ 18% per annum stipulated therein.
 In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that  the  High
Court was right in setting aside the decree passed by learned  single  Judge
of the High Court.
We do not find any merit in these  appeals,  hence,  the
appeals  fail  and  are  hereby  dismissed  with  no  order  as  to   costs.
Interlocutory Applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.
   

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS