Supreme Court of India Judgements

46830 Judgements hosted as on 05/08/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Specific Performance

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.…

Specific Performance

Suit for specific performance – Refund of earnest money – Merely refunding the earnest money paid, after sixty years will be unreasonable as the respondent, after booking the plot, has been waiting all along as even in the litigation since 1986 – Price of the land in the area has increased manifold for the last sixty years – Appellant pays a total amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the respondent as full and final settlement of claim in the suit – Appeals disposed of.

Dec 10, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S GREATER ASHOKA AND LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY @ APPELLANT Vs. KANTI PRASAD JAIN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and…

You missed

Education

Haryana School Education Act, 1995, Section 22 — Civil Court Jurisdiction — Ouster of jurisdiction by statute must be express or implied — Section 22 only ousts jurisdiction where Government or its officers have power to adjudicate — Recovery of fees by a school is not a power conferred on Government/authorities — Civil court jurisdiction not ousted in matters of reasonable fee recovery.

Aug 9, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C I P C

Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband — Allegations in FIR were vague, general, and filed one year after admitted separation of the parties — No specific instances of cruelty were mentioned — Criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Court can quash FIR if allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute any offence — Vague and general allegations of marital discord, without specific instances, do not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC.

Aug 9, 2025 sclaw
I P C POCSO

Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 376(2), 450 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4 — Sexual assault on a minor — Evidence of prosecutrix — Conviction can be based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony if it inspires confidence — Corroboration of testimony of prosecutrix is not a requirement of law, but a guidance of prudence — Minor contractions or small discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out the evidence of the prosecutrix.

Aug 9, 2025 sclaw
C P C

State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 — Section 29 — Liability of Financial Corporation taking possession of industrial unit for dues — Corporation acts as a trustee, liable only to the extent of funds in its hands after settling its dues, not personally liable. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 80 — Notice to Government or public officer — Mandatory requirement before instituting suit — Failure to issue notice or obtain leave renders suit not maintainable and decree a nullity, even if impleaded later.

Aug 9, 2025 sclaw