REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

JAVA SEN Appellant

V/S

SUJIT ICR SARKAR Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

QUINN V. LEALHAIN [REFERRED TO]
RAMA RAVALU GAVADE V. SATABA GAVADUE GAVADE [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN MANUCHA. V MANZOOR AHMED [REFERRED TO]
MALINE AND NEW BRUNSWICK ELECTRICAL POWER V. ALICE M.HORI [REFERRED TO]
FIRM SRINIWAS RAM KUMAR VS. MAHABIR PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. WATKINS MAYOR AND CO [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL MANAGER VS. PAWAN KUMAR DUBEY [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. GURNAM KAUR [REFERRED TO]
KRISHENA KUMAR BALBIR SINGH DESH RAJ KOHLI R N MUBAYI PRESIDENT ALL INDIA RETIRED RAILWAYMEN P F TERMS ASSOCIATION BRIJ MOHAN KAUL K RAVI VERMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SUN ENGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MITTAL ENGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE MEERUT [REFERRED TO]
TEJRAM VS. PATIRAMBHAU [REFERRED TO]
KISHANLAL SONI VS. CHANDRAKANLA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
RADHASHYAM KAMILA VS. KIRAN BALA DASI [REFERRED TO]
MD YUNUS VS. BIBI PHENKANI TASRUN NISA [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL NAGPUR RAILWAY CO LTD VS. RUTTANJI RAMJI [REFERRED TO]
MOULVI ALI HOSSAIN MIAN VS. RAJKUMAR HALDAR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount directed to be paid by the defendant (Purchaser) So the plaintiff (Vendor) by way of consideration for execution of a deed of sale or not is the question involved in this application.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the defendant-appellant claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs :

(3.) THE admitted fact of the mayer as follows: the plaintiff-respondent entered into an agreement for sale of june, 1996 for purchase of the flat on the first floor of the eastern side of the premises No. 1/1z/1, Garihat Road, Calcutta-68 for a consideration of Rs. 3. 25. 000/ -. The appellant initially paid a sum of Rs. 10. 000/- and later on paid several amounts totalling rs. 91. 000/- for which a receipt was granted to him by the plaintiff. The said agreement for sale was on oral one. Admittedly there existed a dispute by and between the plaintiff and the defendant as to whether a garage was also the subject-matter of the aforesaid transaction or not. The respondent had put the appellant in possession of the aforementioned premises in par performance of the contract. As despite same the balance consideration amount was not paid by the appellant. the plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit.

Click here to view full judgment.

JAVA SEN Vs. SUJIT ICR SARKAR

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address