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

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with the powers of natural guardian of a Hindu minor and the said section mandates that the natural guardian has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate, etc. The provision reads as follows: Sec. 8 . Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor; or (b) lease any part of such pro...
Read more

APEX COURT DIGEST 2016 - 1

T.P.Act - Registered sale deed coupled with an agreement of re conveyance - for a transaction to constitute mortgage by conditional sale, it is necessary that the condition is embodied in the document that purports to effect the sale . But not when   Sale Deed dated 14.06.1972 and  Agreement of re conveyance dated 14.06.1972 having been executed on the same day and both ought to be read together and when the Sale Deed was executed only as a security for the loan and it was never the intention of the 1st respondent-plaintiff to convey the suit property. Since 1st respondent- plaintiff has paid back the loan amount i.e. Rs.6,700/- as is evident from the subsequent Agreement dated 05.06.1974, the Courts below rightly recorded the concurrent findings of fact that  Sale Deed is not binding on the 1st respondent-plaintiff. Once repayment was made, the 1st respondent-plaintiff was entitled to the declaration as prayed for no need to ask for  cancellatio...
Read more

Section 25(1) of the Customs Act-exempted from payment of customs duty and additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act.-Under Notification No.17/2001, that the benefit of duty exemption is available only for the import of the plant in full either in CKD or SKD condition. - The subject import can be considered only as a part of the plant.-Therefore, the goods under import are not eligible for the duty exemption as provided under the Notification No.17/2001.-what was imported was not a hot mix plant but only certain parts of such plant and, therefore, the exemption notification would not apply. -It is settled law that statements made to an Officer of Customs are admissible in evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.In the present case, both the oral evidence and the documentary evidence ultimately lead to the same conclusion: namely, that what was imported was not a hot mix plant that was complete in itself. - But not an unassembled Hot Mix Plant -have no application to an exemption notification which is issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPROTS

The appellant entered into a Joint Venture  Agreement  with  M/s            Shapoorji  Pallonji  &  Company  Limited  for  the  purpose   of            construction of roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh.  The Joint            Venture  was  awarded  a  contract  by  the  National   Highways            Authority of India for construction of roads as a  part  of  the            Golden Quadrilateral, Phase-2 Project in Andhra Pradesh. The description reads  :  "Hot                  mix plant batch type with electronic controls and bag  type                  filter arrangement 160 tons per hour capacity." ...
Read more