Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on 08/06/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Specific Performance

Specific Performance Specific Relief Act

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — ‘Readiness and Willingness’ — Plaintiff must aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform contract terms — Such readiness and willingness is gathered from totality of facts and circumstances, including conduct of parties before and after filing suit — Amount to be paid must be proved to be available — Plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness from date of contract till decree — Court can infer readiness and willingness from facts and circumstances.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 573 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. SHAHUL HAMEED Vs. N. MALLIGARJUNA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Specific Performance

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 28(1) and 28(4) — Decree for specific performance — Executability — Non-deposit of balance sale consideration within stipulated time — Plaintiff’s failure to deposit balance sale consideration within three months as stipulated in the decree — No application for extension of time filed within the stipulated period — Contract deemed rescinded and decree rendered inexecutable

May 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 451 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HABBAN SHAH Vs. SHERUDDIN ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S. V. N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…..of 2026 (Arising…

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…

You missed

C P C

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — Section 8(3) — Unauthorized alienation of minor’s property — Such alienation is voidable, not void ab initio, and can be challenged by the minor upon attaining majority or by someone claiming under the minor.

Jun 8, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure — Delay in Investigation and Filing of Charge Sheet — Speedy Trial — Right to Speedy Trial and Timely Completion of Investigation are integral parts of Article 21 of the Constitution — Statutory recognition in CrPC for prompt investigation — Investigations should be completed within a reasonable time, not endlessly — Lack of strict timelines in CrPC does not permit indefinite investigations — Inordinate delay without adequate justification warrants intervention by Courts.

Jun 8, 2026 sclaw
Contract Act Mining

Contract Law — Statutory Amendment — Impact on existing contracts — Where a statutory amendment alters a fundamental aspect like royalty rates, a pre-existing contract cannot prevent the application of the amended law, especially when the payment of royalty is linked to the removal or consumption of minerals — [MMDR Act] Applicability of S.9 — Scope — Section 9 applies broadly to all entities engaged in removal/dispatch of minerals, not only direct mining lessees.

Jun 8, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure — Passport — Return/Surrender of Passport — Accused facing serious criminal charges — Right to travel abroad vis-à-vis right to speedy trial — Balance between individual liberty and societal interest — Accused charged with abetment of suicide and criminal conspiracy since 2014, trial still at stage of committal despite lapse of over ten years — Accused, a US citizen, had misused interim protection in prior proceedings to leave the country without Court’s leave — Whether High Court justified in permitting accused to travel abroad on grounds of medical treatment — Held, not justified — High Court indulgent rather than judicially restrained — Medical facilities in India comparable to those abroad — High Court’s revisional order set aside — Accused restrained from travelling abroad without express permission of Sessions Court — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 442 — Constitution of India, Art. 21

Jun 8, 2026 sclaw