Category: 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.

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…

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.

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…

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

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.…

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.

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…

Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 54 and Section 9 – Suit for specific performance – Limitation – Article 54 of Part II of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 19637 stipulates the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance as three years from the date fixed for performance, and in alternative when no date is fixed, three years from the date when the plaintiff has notice that performance has been refused – when no time is fixed for performance, the court will have to determine the date on which the plaintiff had notice of refusal on part of the defendant to perform the contract.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. VALLIAMMAI — Appellant Vs. K.P. MURALI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Suit for specific performance – Agreement to sell – where the sum named is an amount the payment of which may be substituted for the performance of the act at the election of the person by whom the money is to be paid or the act done, the Court may refuse to pass the decree for specific performance. In the present case, the condition specifically stipulates that in case of failure on the part of the seller to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time the buyer shall be entitled to double the amount given as an advance.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH T.D. VIVEK KUMAR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RANBIR CHAUDHARY — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

HELD when specific performance of the terms of the contract has not been done, the question of time being the essence of contract does not arise – time would not be of essence in a contract wherein the obligations of one party are dependent on the fulfillment of obligations of another party.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GADDIPATI DIVIJA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PATHURI SAMRAJYAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil…

The facts of this case would amply demonstrate that the petitioner/plaintiff was not ready nor capacity to perform his part of the contract as he had no financial capacity to pay the consideration in cash as contracted and intended to bite for the time which disentitles him as time is the essence of the contract.” Thus, both readiness as well as willingness have to be established by the plaintiff on whom the burden is cast in a suit for specific performance of an agreement.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C. HARIDASAN — Appellant Vs. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA KURUP AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.