12 Apr Specific Performance- Illegal Agreement To Sell Can T Be Enforced In Favour Of Plaintiff
Therefore, if the plaintiff and the defendant changed sides and the defendant brought his action against the plaintiff, the plaintiff would have the advantage; for where both are equally responsible, potior is conditio defendentis. There are, however, a few exceptions or “so-called exceptions” to the turpi rule. Four such exceptions were mentioned in Salmond and William on Contracts, and the fourth of these exceptions is based on the right to restitutio integrum, where the relationship between the agent and the beneficiary is involved. Salmond stated the law in these terms on page 352 of his book (2. Ed.): 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 1, it is lawful for the registered detainee or his rightful person to borrow and mortgage or collect a tax for his interest in the property for the benefit of the state government, a financial institution, a cooperative rural development bank. , a co-operative or corporation within the meaning of Section 3 of the Corporations Act, 1956, in which at least fifty-one per cent of the share capital paid is held by the government or a corporation owned or controlled by the government or central government or controlled, or for both land development or improvement of agricultural practices; or for the granting of an education loan to pursue the higher education of that person`s children and without prejudice to other statutory remedies, in the event of a delay in payment with the payment of such a loan in accordance with the conditions to which the loan was granted, it is lawful to impute and sell its shares in the country and the proceeds used for the payment of that loan. The Court held that the principle to be applied in fact would depend on the question of which principle is most in line with the public interest. The Court finds that if both parties are involved in the fraud before the Court of Justice, the Court must determine which approach would be less contrary to the public interest. The Court found that, whatever approach was taken, one party would be successful and the other would fail, and therefore it is appropriate to consider which party would be less favourable to the public interest. Indeed, the Court finds that, if the order were to be enacted in favour of respondent No. 1 (who was the applicant), it would actively support respondent No.
1 in order to effectively bring about the fraud in which it participated, and it was found that the Court of Justice could be used in this sense as an instrument of fraud, which is manifest and contrary to the public interest. 25. However, the assifying question in such a situation is: “The judgment of the Court of Justice would take into account on which part”? Like hidayatullah, J.