1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Appeal Court Overturns Decision, Upholds Initial Ruling; Stresses Valid Evidence for Specific Relief Act Compliance.</h1> The HC allowed the second appeal, overturning the first Appellate Court's decision and upholding the initial court's ruling. It emphasized the necessity ... - Issues involved:1. Compliance of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act by the plaintiff/purchaser.2. Validity of the power-of-attorney as a piece of evidence.Compliance of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act:The judgment revolves around the compliance of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act by the plaintiff/purchaser. The Court of first instance differentiated between pleading and proof concerning readiness and willingness under Section 16. It was emphasized that there must be a valid piece of evidence to establish compliance. The first Appellate Court's decision to not grant relief solely based on this ground was deemed incorrect and unjustified by the High Court. The High Court concluded that the plaintiff's lack of readiness and willingness, as evidenced by the invalidity of the power-of-attorney, was sufficient to contest the issue against the plaintiff.Validity of the power-of-attorney:The judgment also delves into the validity of the power-of-attorney as a piece of evidence. The Court highlighted the necessity for due compliance with Section 85 of the Evidence Act and Section 33 of the Registration Act for the execution of a power-of-attorney. In this case, the power-of-attorney was executed in Bombay (Mumbai) despite all parties being residents of Calcutta (Kolkata). The High Court emphasized that authentication or registration within the principal's sub-district is crucial for the document's validity. Since the power-of-attorney was not executed where the parties resided, it was deemed invalid as evidence under Section 85 of the Evidence Act. This invalidity further supported the finding that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform the contract as required by Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act.Judgment Outcome:The High Court allowed the second appeal, setting aside the first Appellate Court's order and confirming the decision of the Court of first instance. The judgment emphasized the importance of valid evidence and compliance with legal provisions in determining readiness and willingness under the Specific Relief Act. A decree was directed to be drawn up promptly, with lower court records to be sent down accordingly. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
