REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Saroj Kanta Appellant

V/S

Jai Parkesh Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

GRANDHI YUGANDHER AND ANOTHER VS. M/S JYOTHI FINANCIERS,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SAMAYAMANTULA UMAMAHESWARA RAO [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHAN VS. SH. TARUN BAJAJ AND OTHERS VS. TARUN BAJAJ AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
K. RANGA PRASAD VARMA VS. KOTIKALAPUDI SITARAMA MURTHY AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
FAZALULLAH KHAN VS. M. AKBAR CONTRACTOR (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
GRANDHI YUGANDHER VS. M/S JYOTHI FINANCIERS,REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,SAMAYAMANTULA UMAMAESHWARA RAO [REFERRED TO]
RAOSAHED YESBA SARTAPE VS. BALVEER SHANKAR SARTAPE AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF BARODA VS. SADRUDDIN HASAN DAYA AND AN .,AIR 2004 SC 942 BOLISETTY PREM SAI VS. RALLAPALI VENKATA LAKSHMANA SWAMY [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTU RAM VS. URVASHI GULATI AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
S SUNDARAM PILLAI KOUSALAYA DEVT MURUGESA MUDALIAR N S DHANALAKSHMI AMMAL THAHIRA BEEVI M BALAKRISHNAN K R KRISHNAN VS. V R PATTABIRAMAN:P LAKSHMINARAYANA CHARYA:SELVARAJ CHETTIAR:B S RAMACHARI:R A MUTHIAH NADAR:FATHIMA BAI:P BHANUMATT [REFERRED TO]
LT COL K D GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAKAPALU RAJA RAMA GOPALA RAO VS. NARAGANI GOVINDA SEHARARAO [REFERRED TO]
V G NIGAM VS. KEDAR NATH GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
NIAZ MOHAMMAD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
CHORDIA AUTOMOBILES VS. S MOOSA [REFERRED TO]
MRITYUNJOY DAS VS. SAYED HASIBUR RAHAMAN [REFERRED TO]
ANIL RATAN SARKAR VS. HIRAK GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK PAPER KAMGAR UNION VS. DHARAM GODHA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. MD ILLIYAS [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. GEETA BHAT [REFERRED TO]
THREE CHEERS ENTERTAINMENT P LTD VS. C E S C [REFERRED TO]
SAHDEO ALIAS SAHDEO SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
UNIWORTH TEXTILES LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD VS. TUNCAY ALANKUS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner alleges violation of the order dtd. 10/3/2014, vide which while adjourning the RSA No.2142-2013 to 29/8/2014, it was directed that'In the meantime, execution of the impugned decree shall remain stayed.' The case file of RSA No.2142-2013 is summoned and interim orders are perused.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a civil suit was filed by respondent No.1/Jai Parkesh-plaintiff on 20/4/2007 praying for decree of possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dtd. 28/12/2006 regarding 01 Bigha 12 Biswas of land for a total consideration of Rs.3,85,000.00. This suit was filed by respondent-plaintiff Jai Parkesh against Chatter Singh @ Kaptan/defendant No.1 and petitioner Saroj Kanta/defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 in his written statement denied the execution of agreement to sell. The defendant No.2 set up a plea that she is a bona fide purchaser. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dtd. 23/3/2010 partly decreed the suit regarding return of Rs.1,00,000.00 earnest money along with interest @ 12% per annum till its realisation.

(3.) In appeal filed by respondent Jai Parkesh, the same was accepted and defendant No.1 Chatter Singh @ Kaptan was directed to execute the sale deed of the disputed property within two months of the date of judgment, failing which the plaintiff-appellant-Jai Parkesh was held entitled to get the sale deed executed through trial Court.

Click here to view full judgment.

SAROJ KANTA Vs. JAI PARKESH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address