Agreement To Sell Recent Judgement
44. As indicated above, it was for the applicant to learn, on 2.1.2000 and 1.9.2000, that the owner of the appeals centre, in collaboration with the so-called intended buyer, was attempting to expropriate her from the appeals centre on account of his property on the appeals centre. That event was therefore rightly taken as a starting point for the defendant`s refusal to perform the contract, which led the applicant to inform defendant 2 on 3.6.2000 and then to bring an action on 31.3.2000. `37. As the prayer requested in the initial application was able to observe, the applicant did not request a request for a declaration that the termination of the contract of sale was legally wrong. In the absence of such a prayer on the part of the applicant, the initial appeal which he brought before the Court of Justice for the adoption of a decree relating to the specific benefit relating to the property provided for in respect of the appeal on the basis of the purchase agreement and the resulting exemption from the decree for a permanent injunction is not maintained. The verdict was delivered on 10.02.2020 by a chamber composed of Judge NV Ramana and Judge V. Ramasubramanian. The defendant, in an action for the actual performance of an agreement, must prove that he was willing and willing to continuously fulfil his part of the contract between the date of the contract and the date of hearing of the appeal. One of the situations that the courts must take into consideration in cases of concrete execution of an agreement for the sale of real estate is the increase in the price of the property during the duration of the dispute. However, the courts have held that the exemption from the service at issue cannot be refused solely because of the phenomenal increase in prices during the duration of the disputes. In such cases, the principle of set-off of actions is again applied by the courts and, before the Tribunal grants or refuses exemption from the specified benefit, it is also required to assess the other crucial aspects, such as.B. who is the defaulting party, whether one party tries to gain an undue advantage over the other.
the harshness that the seller may cause by the conduct of a given service, the unfair advantage that the buyer can obtain compared to the seller when an exemption from a given service is granted, etc. The first plaintiff also filed criminal proceedings against defendants 1 and 2 for fraud and the defendants were convicted by the court of justice and then acquitted on appeal. In the criminal proceedings, the authenticity of the contract of sale of 16.7.1980 was also questioned by defendants 1 and 2. Consequently, defendants 1 and 2 are not required to execute a deed of sale and the applicants are not entitled to a specific exemption from service. . . .