Supreme Court of India Judgements

46650 Judgements hosted as on 11/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Specific Performance

Specific Performance

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.

Jan 22, 2023 sclaw

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…

Specific Performance

Held plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance in which it was specifically averred that he was ready and willing to perform the agreement dated 13.03.2007. In his deposition, the plaintiff specifically stated that he was ready and willing to perform his obligations under the agreement. He further stated that he approached the defendant in the month of June, 2007 and again in July, 2007 with the balance sale consideration. Order of trial court restored

Jan 8, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BASAVARAJ — Appellant Vs. PADMAVATHI AND ANOTHERR — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 8962-8963…

Specific Performance

Refund of any earnest money – The litmus test appears to be that unless a plaintiff specifically seeks the refund of the earnest money at the time of filing of the suit or by way of amendment, no such relief can be granted to him – Prayer clause is a sine qua non for grant of decree of refund of earnest money. HELD nature of ‘earnest money’, the onus to prove that the same was ‘penal’ in nature squarely lies on the party seeking refund of the same –

Dec 15, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DESH RAJ AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ROHTASH SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

C P C Specific Performance

Suit for specific performance – There was no specific issue framed by the learned Trial Court on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff – There must be a specific issue framed on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance and before giving any specific finding, the parties must be put to notice. Remanded

Nov 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V.S. RAMAKRISHNAN — Appellant Vs. P.M. MUHAMMED ALI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 8050-8051…

Specific Performance

Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell – Limitation had started running from the date the respondent noticed that the performance was refused by the appellant and not from the date of the execution of agreement in question – the compliance of “readiness and willingness” has to be in spirit and substance and not in letter and form, while making averments in the plaint. As per the Explanation (i) to Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act, 1963 – he need not tender to the defendant or deposit the amount in the court, but he must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform the contract according to its true construction.

Oct 16, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P. DAIVASIGAMANI — Appellant Vs. S. S AMBANDAN — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Specific Performance

Decree for specific performance – Agreement of sale provided that in the event the permission was not obtained within 75 days – permission not granted agreement cancelled by defendant rightly – on equity Rs 15000 paid in 1978 by plaintiff ordered defendant to pay Rs 15,00,000 to plaintiff-

Oct 9, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH KOLLI SATYANARAYANA (DEAD) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. VALURIPALLI KESAVA RAO CHOWDARY (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai…

Specific Performance

Unregistered agreement to sell on ten rupees stamp paper – Admissibility of — Suit for permanent injunction — Counter-claim seeking possession — Unregistered document/agreement to sell shall not be admissible in evidence – Plaintiff cleverly prayed for a relief of permanent injunction only and did not seek for the substantive relief of specific performance- Dismissed

Sep 25, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: M.R. Shah & Krishna Murari, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2022 Decided on : 23.09.2022 Balram Singh – Appellant Versus Kelo Devi – Respondent…

Specific Performance

HELD by accepting the alternate relief claimed by the plaintiff of refund of the advance amount along with the interest @ 12% per annum. The High Court found suspicious circumstances and doubtful situations being raised by both the sides. The reasons given by the High Court as contained in paragraph 40, in our opinion, were sufficient to arrive at a conclusion of not awarding the relief of specific performance of contract

Aug 30, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH AYILLYATH YADUNATH NAMBIAR — Appellant Vs. P. SREEDHARAN — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s). 4943…

Specific Performance

Specific performance – There is no doubt that the claim of purchaser is hit by delay and laches on their part as they did not take appropriate measures within the stipulated time and filing of the suit was delayed by almost five years – It is not an appropriate case for granting relief to the purchaser in terms of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the claim of the purchaser is barred by delay, laches and limitation.

Aug 28, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SMT. KATTA SUJATHA REDDY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., Krishna…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw