Dismissed

Krishnaji Pandurang Gurav v. Babulal Mangilal Jain

Bombay HC26 Apr 2005SA/514/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil appeal filed by the original defendant against a decree for specific performance, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeal. The appellant failed to formulate substantial questions of law, and the Court rejected arguments regarding vague agreements, time being of the essence, and contractual variance.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Krishnaji Pandurang Gurav Vs Babulal Mangilal Jain — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO.514 OF 2004.

¶5

 Shri Krishnaji Pandurang Gurav

¶6

 since deceased through his LRs

¶7

 Smt.Shalini Krishnaji Gurav : Appellant.

¶8

 versus

¶9

 Shri Babulal Mangilal Jain : Respondent.

¶10

 Mr.Varsha Palav for the appellant.

¶11

 Mr.P.S.Dani for the respondent.

¶12

CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J.

¶13

 DATED : 26th APRIL 2005.

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

 1. By consent of both the advocates for the

¶16

 appellant and respondent the appeal is taken up

¶17

 for final hearing at the admission stage. Heard
 advocates for the appellant and respondent. This
 appeal is filed by the original defendant. The
 suit was filed by the plaintiff against the

¶18

¶19

 appellant/defendant for specific performance of
 contract. It was decreed. The appeal of the
 appellant came to be dismissed. Hence this
 appeal.

¶20

 2. Firstly, the learned counsel for the
 appellant could not formulate any substantial
 question of law nor she could show as to what was
 the substantial question of law. However,
 according to her, the agreement between the
 parties does not show name of the purchaser;
 secondly, time was the essence of agreement; and
 thirdly, according to her, there was variance
 between the agreement and final agreement. All
 the three points, however, have been rightly
 rejected by the courts below.

¶21

 3. It is true that in the draft agreement
 the name of purchaser is not mentioned, but it
 was the appellant who gave notice to the
 respondent calling upon him to execute the sale
 deed. This clearly shows that the appellant has
 accepted the agreement as it is and has not made
 any grievance that the agreement was vague.
 Secondly, there is nothing in the agreement from
 which it can be construed that the time was made

¶22

¶23

 as essence of agreement. Merely mentioning the

¶24

 date of sale deed does not make the time as
 essence of contract. Thirdly, there is a
 variance between the draft agreement and final
 concluded agreement because the concluded
 agreement is signed by the appellant and most
 important thing that is pointed out by Mr.Dani,
 appearing for the respondent, is that the
 appellant did not enter the witness box. In

¶25

 these circumstances, therefore, there is no merit

¶26

 in this appeal. It is dismissed with costs.

¶27

 [D.G.DESHPANDE]

¶28

 26/04/2005 JUDGE.

Krishnaji Pandurang Gurav v. Babulal Mangilal Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnaji Pandurang Gurav v. Babulal Mangilal Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Mahrashtra Vs Shri Namdeo Bhanudas Sitole and Anr.

The State of Mahrashtra Vs Shri Namdeo Bhanudas Sitole and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Waman M Deore

The State of Maharashtra Vs Appu Bharma Amrolkar

Kalubai Namdeo Jundare (Desd) Lrs. Vs Parasmal Uttamchand Picha

Shri Rajaram Bhagwati Tiwari and Ors. Vs Gauri Shankar Ramdhani Tiwari and Ors.