Supreme Court of India Judgements

47040 Judgements hosted as on 17/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Specific Performance

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…

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…

You missed

Stamp Act

Andhra Pradesh Stamp Act — Schedule I-A, Article 47A, Explanation I — Agreement to Sell — Deemed Conveyance — For an agreement to sell to be deemed a conveyance under Explanation I, the delivery of possession must be linked to the agreement to sell, either following it or evidenced by it. If possession existed prior to the agreement and was not surrendered or changed because of the agreement, it does not fall under this Explanation.

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 41(h) — Injunction when refused — Equally efficacious remedy — A suit for mandatory injunction for removal of a wall is barred if the plaintiff has not claimed possession, and possession is disputed, as a suit for possession would be a more efficacious remedy.

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw
Direct Taxation Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 197, 245Q, 245R(2)(iii) — Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Mauritius, Article 13(4) — Capital Gains Tax — Advance Ruling — Tax Avoidance — The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) rejected an application for an advance ruling on the grounds that the transaction (sale of shares of a Singapore company by a Mauritius company) was prima facie designed for tax avoidance — The High Court overturned this decision, holding the assessee was entitled to treaty benefits and that their income was not chargeable in India — The Supreme Court is examining whether the AAR was correct in rejecting the applications for advance ruling on maintainability grounds.

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7 — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Admission of CIRP — Adjudicating Authority’s power and duty — Legal position is well-settled that once the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that a financial debt exists and a default has occurred, it must admit the application — Inquiry under Section 7(5)(a) is confined strictly to determination of debt and default, leaving no scope for equitable or discretionary considerations — Reliance on Vidarbha Industries is misconceived; it is a narrow exception confined to its peculiar facts — Admission under Section 7 remains mandatory once debt and default are established — Any alleged non-cooperation by the financial creditor occurred subsequent to the default and cannot absolve the corporate debtor of its admitted failure to comply with its payment obligations. (Paras 12.3, 12.6, 12.9, 12.10)

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw