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

APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [6]

Delhi Rent control Act sec.14 - Rent Control Case - Eviction Petition - The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant  on  the  ground  that  the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law  in  contravention  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred  to  as ‘the Act’).  -  whether  he  was doing business along with his father-in-law or independent of him,  i.e. whether  he  was  doing  business  exclusively  behind  the  façade   of   a  partnership or as a genuine partner.  It is an  uncontroverted  fact  before  us that the landlord’s permission in writing was  not  obtained  before  the  tenant had allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop -  the Rent Controller clearly found that the son-in-law had been put  in  possession of the shop in pursua...
Read more

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, Rule 1 & 2 and Sec. 151 and sec.94 of C.P.C - Police aid when to be granted - hear both parties when resisted - to avoid dispossession of actual possessor with the help of police aid - identify the property before issuing of police aid with the help of advocate commissioner if necessary - since the defendant pleaded that before the filing of suit and after filing of the suit ,he never trespassed into the suit schedule property nor violated interim injunction order - even though no evidence of violation of injunction not filed , the lower court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent when police aid is granted -2013 A.P. msklawreports

filed the I.A.No.175 of 2010 for granting police aid on the ground that the order of ad-interim injunction could not be implemented as the petitioners involved in violating it. In particular the petitioner has not filed any document to show that the injunction granted by this Court is being violated or the respondents damaged his quarry It is the case of the respondents that they did not trespass into suit schedule property before or after the injunction is granted.  What that is the case of the respondents, this Court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the police aid is granted to implement the order of this Court. "  the Court below granted the police aid aggrieved by which the present C.R.P. has been filed However, whereas great caution is to be taken for granting ex parte ad-interim injunction equal measures are to be taken while granting police aid to enforce that order.   Under the guise of an order of ad-interim i...
Read more