JUDGE: Applying the principle that an enforcement court cannot go beyond the discharge granted by a decree, the Supreme Court decided that an arbitral award setting the price of the land could not be enforced as a decree for the concrete execution of the sales contract if the reference to the arbitrator was determined only for the determination of compensation in the context of the sale contract. Although in this case, the arbitrator`s award did not relate to the right, property or interest of a property and was only for the determination of the price of the land, but if the enforcement court were to deal the same with the enforcement of the (locked up) land purchase case, it should have taken into account the effects of not registering such a sentence, which was not done in this case – Judge Uday Umesh Umesh Lalit – Vineet Saran (a) separate possession or share and possession, in addition to this performance; or “In my view, on the evidence already to be recorded, it was sufficient for the court to conclude that Plaintiff 1 was willing and willing to perform his part of the contract. It was not necessary for him to draw up actual figures and satisfy the court of the specific amount that a bank would have advanced ……` ». The appeal for a defined benefit dealt with the question of whether the sale agreement of 15.05.1990, executed by the defendant in favour of the applicant, was legally applicable or not. It was found that the agreement on the sale of 15.05.1990 had been clearly concluded by Section 61 of the Reform Act. For this reason, the appeal was dismissed The court, in this case, had found the appeal for certain services that the plaintiff did not prove his will and willingness to execute the contract. The first court of appeal allowed the appeal and ruled on the appeal, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. Although the Supreme Court found that a sale agreement had been reached between the complainants and the respondent`s father on June 2, 1999, but did not establish the facts of the case. The thought agreed between the parties was rupees One lakh and sixty thousand, of which a quantity of rupees was paid to sell sixty thousand at the time of the implementation of the agreement. The sale is expected to close within three years with payment of Rupien One Lakh`s balance. On May 7, 2002, the respondent issued a legal reference to the implementation of the sale agreement.
In response to the legal note, the complainant`s defence was, among other things, that the sale agreement had been executed only as collateral for a loan transaction, since the complainant`s father was a lender (which is a recognized fact). The Supreme Court found that there was no error in the finding of the facts by the three courts and that, therefore, the judgment on the merits could not be set aside. The applicant, however, drew the attention of the Supreme Court to another argument that the property is the only property that retains the complainant`s property and has an extremely high value. The complainant also stated that they were willing to pay a sum of Ten Lakhs rupees, or more, to retain ownership of the complaint. In its decision, the Supreme Court considered this limited question/alternative argument. Despite the above amendments, the courts continue to review the following well-established criteria and principles, while granting or denying a defined benefit.