Supreme Court of India Judgements

47070 Judgements hosted as on 21/03/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Specific Performance

Specific Performance

Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell — Trial Court decreed suit for specific performance of sale agreement — High Court set aside Trial Court’s decree — Held, Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed on the same day as sale agreement established that sale agreement was sham and nominal, executed as security for loan — Plaintiff’s failure to disclose MoU in plaint indicated withholding of material facts and lack of bonafides — Equitable relief of specific performance denied — Appeal dismissed.

Mar 15, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 214 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUDDAM RAJU YADAV Vs. B. RAJA SHANKER (D) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and Prasanna B.…

Specific Performance

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 28 (1) — Decree for specific performance — Payment of purchase money — Extension of time — Execution of decree — Where a decree for specific performance allows a period for the purchaser to pay the purchase money, the court has the power under Section 28(1) to extend this time on such terms as it deems fit — The power to extend time for performance of the conditions of the decree cannot be the end of the transaction, and adopting a hyper-technical approach that treats non-extension as final ought to be eschewed — The real test is whether the plaintiff’s conduct amounts to a positive refusal to complete their part of the contract. (Paras 5, 7)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1486 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. AMIT ARYA Vs. KAMLESH KUMARI ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…..of 2025 (Arising…

Specific Performance

Agreement to Sell — Breach of Contract — Refund of Advance — Suppression of Material Fact — Reversal of Trial Court decree by High Court — High Court relying solely on a fleeting admission in cross-examination of plaintiff regarding prior knowledge (August 25, 2008) of mortgage on property, despite agreement being executed later (September 10, 2008) and parties admitting to no prior interaction before September 2008 — Supreme Court held reliance on such solitary, abstract admission misplaced, especially as material on record indicated subsequent conduct of defendant (reducing sale price, failure to reply to legal notice alleging concealment) admitted concealment of mortgage — Trial Court judgment decreeing refund restored. (Paras 13, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33)

Dec 17, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1428 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOIDEENKUTTY Vs. ABRAHAM GEORGE ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(S). 5405 of 2023 Decided…

C P C Specific Performance

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 10 — Specific performance of contract — Plaintiff must prove existence of a valid agreement of sale, breach by defendant, and plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform — Defendant admitted signatures but pleaded misuse of blank papers and no agreement of sale — Plaintiff failed to examine witnesses to the agreement to sell and rent deed — Plaintiff’s evidence was self-serving — Failure to produce crucial evidence supporting the agreement rendered plaintiff’s case unsustainable.

Aug 9, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 924 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARISH KUMAR Vs. AMAR NATH AND ANOTHER (BOTH DEAD AND REPRESENTED THROUGH LR.) ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti,…

Specific Performance

Suit for Specific Performance — Agreement to sell — The respondent-plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land — The appellant-defendant allegedly failed to execute the sale deed despite receiving earnest money — Whether the agreement was valid and enforceable, and whether the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to specific performance or alternative relief —The appellant-defendant claimed the agreement was fraudulent, without consideration, and prepared through misrepresentation — The respondent-plaintiff argued that the agreement was genuine, and the appellant-defendant breached its terms by not executing the sale deed — The trial court, first appellate court, and high court ruled against the appellant-defendant, ordering the refund of earnest money with interest —The Supreme Court found the lower courts’ judgments perverse, noting inconsistencies and lack of evidence supporting the respondent-plaintiff’s claims —The Supreme Court emphasized the need for clear evidence and adherence to legal procedures, highlighting the suspicious nature of the agreement —The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts’ judgments, ruling in favor of the appellant-defendant and dismissing the respondent-plaintiff’s claims.

Oct 2, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 744 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAKHA SINGH — Appellant Vs. BALWINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

Specific Performance

Date of Performance determines Limitation Period — The Court clarified that when a specific date for performance is fixed in a contract, the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance begins to run from that date, not from any later date mentioned in the agreement regarding its validity — This interpretation reinforces the principle that the statute of limitations is triggered by the failure to perform as agreed, not by the contract’s overall duration.Validity Clause does not Extend Limitation Period — The Court held that a clause in a contract extending its validity does not automatically extend the limitation period for enforcing the contract’s terms — This distinction is crucial for determining when legal action must be initiated to seek specific performance.

Aug 13, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 599 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH USHA DEVI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAM KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prasanna…

Specific Performance

Agreement to sell – Suit for Specific performance – The appellant entered into a sale agreement with respondent 4, a Power of Attorney, for respondents 2 to 11 – The sale was to be completed by a certain date, which was extended multiple times – However, the land was sold to respondents 1 to 3, who were also Power of Attorney holders – The main issue was whether the sale agreement was valid and the appellant had the right to specific performance of the contract – The appellant argued that the agreement was valid, the earnest money was paid, and the suit was filed within the time limit – The respondents argued that not all co-owners signed the agreement, the appellant was not ready with the funds, and the suit was barred by limitation – The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant, but the High Court set aside this decree, leading to the current appeal – The court found that not all co-owners signed the agreement, the Power of Attorney was not proved in the trial, and the appellant’s failure to appear as a witness was noted – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, dismissing the appeal and concluding that the appellant was not entitled to specific performance.

Jun 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. ANAND KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of “consumer” — Commercial purpose — Deposit of surplus funds by a company in a bank for earning interest does not automatically make it a commercial purpose, but if the deposit is made to leverage credit facilities for augmenting business, it would have a direct nexus with revenue generation/profits — The identity of the purchaser or the value of the transaction is not conclusive, but the dominant intention or purpose behind the transaction is determining.

Mar 21, 2026 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 406 and 420 — Criminal breach of trust and cheating — For an offence of cheating under Section 415 IPC, a fraudulent or dishonest intention must exist at the time of making the promise or representation — Mere failure to keep a promise subsequently does not automatically prove dishonest intention from the beginning — Every breach of contract does not amount to cheating, unless there was deception at the inception.

Mar 21, 2026 sclaw
Service

Service Law — Disciplinary proceedings post-superannuation — Where service regulations permit continuation of disciplinary proceedings initiated before superannuation, they can be concluded thereafter — Punishment of reduction in pay scale can be implemented by computing pension based on the reduced salary.

Mar 21, 2026 sclaw
Corporate SEBI

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 — Section 15Z — Appeal to Supreme Court against SAT order setting aside Adjudicating Officer’s order imposing penalties for violation of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 and Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 — Held, diversion of funds from preferential issue was in violation of Regulations and detrimental to investors — SAT’s reversal of AO’s order based on shareholder ratification was erroneous — Appeals allowed — Order of Adjudicating Officer restored.

Mar 18, 2026 sclaw