Supreme Court of India Judgements

47000 Judgements hosted as on 19/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Specific Performance

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…

Specific Performance

Suit for specific performance – Suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale executed by the respondent in their favour in respect of a plot of land in Chandigarh – The Supreme Court held that the appellants were disentitled to the relief of specific performance due to their conduct of making false and/or incorrect statements in the plaint – The Supreme Court also held that the appellants did not give up their claim against the co-sharers of the respondent who were not parties to the suit.

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAJOR GEN. DARSHAN SINGH (D) BY LRS. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. BRIJ BHUSHAN CHAUDHARY (D) BY LRS. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay…

Specific Performance

Even if the case of later payments by the respondents to the appellants is accepted, the same being at great intervals and there being no willingness shown by them to pay the remaining amount or getting the Sale Deed ascribed on necessary stamp paper and giving notice to the appellants to execute the Sale Deed, it cannot be said that in the present case, judged on the anvil of the conduct of parties, especially the appellants, time would not remain the essence of the contract – Suit for specific performance dismissed

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALAGAMMAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GANESAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

You missed

Service

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Acquittal I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw