Supreme Court of India
JARABANOO FIROZ SHAH MOOS versus ANDHRA PRADESH CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST ASSOCIATION, HYDERABAD AND ORS.
- Decided
- 25 August 1995
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 94 · 1995 INSC 502
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
This court on September 14, 1994 passed an order in the mam appeal, viz., C.A. No. 279 of 1987. As some typographical mistakes had crept in the said order and to avoid further litigation between the parties, we hereby direct the relevant part of the said order to be modified and read as under :
p. 94, margin G
"This appeal by Special Leave arises from the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of A.P. in Civil Appeal N0.1/77. The appeal of the respondent-Association was allowed by the High Court. The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the Association for specific performance of the agreement dated July 26, 1967, agreeing to convey the property bearing No. 5-9-262, Hyderabad. From the averments of the appellant herself, it is clear that the agreement was for Rs. 2,42,000 but she came to know that the consideration was shown in the agreement at Rs. 2,10,000. In consequence, she lost Rs. 20,000 as she contended that the agreement was vitiated by fraud and that, therefore, the decrees cannot be enforced since the respondents were parties to the fraud. We find no force in the contention. At best it is not the case that she did not agree to execute the agreement. It is also not her case that she did not read the contents of the agreement. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any fraud played on her. At best it can be said that the appellant is not a consenting party to the actual consideration of Rs. 2,10,000. We give the benefit to the appellant only to the extent of her share of Rs. 20,000 and the respondents are directed to pay Rs. 10,000 and further a sum of Rs. 20,000 towards interest. The order of the High Court is accordingly
pp. 94–95, margin H
confirmed with the above modification ...... ". The remaining part of the order would remain as it is.
p. 95, margin D
Appeal disposed of.
p. 95, margin E