(1 2) of the contract include not only the difference between the contract price and the market price on the date of default but also a further sum of 10s. We would however, prefer to follow the dicta advocates in Supreme Court of India Krishanaji Pandharinath to cover the present situation under the principle of lis pendens since the sale was executed at a time when the second appeal had not been filed but which came to be filed afterwards within the period of limitation. 7, was also filed since three of the parties to the dispute were minors.
” They hold that this was so though the transferee was not a party to the order of adjudication. (emphasis laid by this Court) Notwithstanding the above legal principle, we have examined the legality and validity of the alleged gift deed. The Sessions Court observed that the extreme depravity with which the offences were committed and the merciless manner in which the deceased was raped and done to death, coupled with the gross abuse of the position of trust held by the Accused No.
The argument under this head is that the liquidated damages provided under cl. The Sessions Court, in its order of sentence, has noticed that the accused- appellants committed and executed the heinous offences in a pre-planned and meticulous manner which showed the determination of both the accused to complete the crime and take away the life of the accused. The transferee who was not a party to the insolvency petition, then asked for an extension of time to prefer an appeal from the order of adjudication but this was refused.
The above decision also dispels the impression that if the Parliament has used the words may and shall at the places in the same provision, it means that the intention was to make a distinction in as much as one was intended to be discretionary while the other mandatory. Vasant Gupte, President and this evidence could not be shut out as the respondents were aware about it. In that view of the matter the appellate Judges felt that there was a decision binding on the transferee that the transfer was void as a fraudulent preference and they thereupon annulled the transfer as a matter of course.
He further submitted that in view of the documents having been filed before the lawyer Supreme Court of India and exhibited as P-27 to P-42, the Division Bench had wrongly held that they were outside the scope of evidence as these documents were not pleaded in the plaint nor was any amendment preferred. On July 21, 1944, the trial court allowed the said application and certified that the proposed reference was for the benefit of the minors and so referred ” the matters in dispute in the suit and all matters and proceedings connected therewith ” for determination by the two arbitrators named by the parties.
According to learned senior counsel, the only requirement under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is that the plaint must contain essential pleas or contentions and it is not necessary to plead evidence. This is obvious from the following passage where this Court declared that even when the two words are used in the same provision the Courts power to discover the true intention of the legislature remains unaffected: The recital of the gift deed, particularly, the recital clause 2 is extracted hereunder: The doctrine of lis pendens is founded in public policy and equity, and if it has to be read meaningfully such a sale as in the present case until the period of limitation for second appeal is over will have to be held as covered under Section 52 of the TP Act.
1 (1964) 2 SCR 495 wherein it was held that where all the terms are crystallized between the parties, the execution of a formal agreement is not a pre-requisite for the grant of specific relief. The judgments in the High advocates Supreme Court of India are reported in 45 C. 1 and the lack of remorse or repentance for any of their actions, would clearly indicate that the given case was fit to be placed within the category of rarest of rare and the only punishment proportionate to the brutality exhibited by the accused-appellants would be the death penalty.
33 and 35 of the plaint, a specific plea was taken by the appellant that the respondents were on a false pretext seeking to wriggle out their contractual obligations and in support of the plea of false pretext, the appellant was entitled to adduce evidence to show that the refusal on the part of the Mill Mazdoor Sabha/labour to permit the sale of the suit property was nothing but an eye wash by the respondents. In the present case, it would be canvassed on behalf of the respondent and the applicant that the sale has taken place in favour of the applicant at a time when there was no stay operating against such sale, and in fact when the [pic]second appeal had not been filed.
but they were both of opinion (following Ex- parte Learoyd (1) that the order of adjudication was conclu- sive and could not be disputed. An application under 0. To establish this fact, the appellant had produced documents and also led oral testimony through one of the trade union office bearers, viz. (2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest a such memo shall be attested by atleast one witness who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made.
It shall also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.