JANARDAN DAS & ORS.versusDURGA PRASAD AGARWALLA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 613/2017
Decision Date: 26-09-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC778

English ଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odiaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi 




 Disclaimer 


 
								 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments. 
						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.
						 JANARDAN DAS & ORS. versus DURGA PRASAD AGARWALLA & ORS.  - [2024] 9 S.C.R. 9472024 INSC 778 VIKRAM NATH, PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the plaintiffs proved their continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract as mandated u/s.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; whether the agreement to sell was valid and enforceable against three that defendant no. 1-co-owner lacked the authority to act on their behalf without a valid and subsisting General Power of Attorney; and whether the relief of specific performance, being discretionary, having been denied by the trial court was rightly granted by the High Court. 

Summary: Englishଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odiaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.JANARDAN DAS & ORS.versusDURGA PRASAD AGARWALLA & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 9472024 INSC 778Coram : VIKRAM NATH, PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the plaintiffs proved their continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract as mandated u/s.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; whether the agreement to sell was valid and enforceable against three that defendant no. 1-co-owner lacked the authority to act on their behalf without a valid and subsisting General Power of Attorney; and whether the relief of specific performance, being discretionary, having been denied by the trial court was rightly granted by the High Court.