Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Specific Performance

Specific Performance

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(1)(c) – Suit for specific performance of agreement – Readiness and willingness – The application for extension of time made after expiry of the time prescribed is sufficient evidence for the incapacity of the plaintiff to perform his obligations demonstrating readiness and willingness

Oct 4, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  RAVI SETIA — Appellant Vs. MADAN LAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s).…

Specific Performance

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20(2)(c) – Suit for specific performance – Agreement to sell – To take benefit of clause (c) of sub­section (2) of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the defendant in a suit for specific performance must show that he entered into the contract under the circumstances which though rendering the contract voidable, make it inequitable

Sep 29, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LEELADHAR (D) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. VIJAY KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose,…

Specific Performance

Agreement to Sell—Capacity to Pay—Once the finding is recorded that seller did not perform his part of contract before execution of sale deed then failure on the part of buyer to ‘demonstrate’ that he was having sufficient money with him to pay the balance sale consideration is not of much consequence.

Aug 24, 2019 sclaw

2019(3) Law Herald (SC) 1883 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 1034 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah Civil Appeal Nos.…

Specific Performance

Agreement to Sell—Concurrent findings of fact—The issue of readiness and willingness is the most important issue for considering the grant of specific performance of the contract and the same having been held (in favour or against the plaintiff) by the Courts below on appreciation of evidence; is binding even on Supreme Court

Jul 21, 2019 sclaw

2019(1) Law Herald (P&H) 855 (SC) : 2019 LawHerald.Org 608 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Ms. Justice indu Malhotra Civil Appeal…

Specific Performance

Agreement to Sell—Specific Performance—Plaintiff has to aver and prove his readiness and willingness—Merely because defendant has not taken any objection in their written statement in this regard is of no consequence Agreement to Sell—Specific Performance—Pleadings of plaintiff were essentially directed towards the existence and validity of the alleged agreement and the surrounding dealings of the parties; but is lacking in those material assertions on readiness and willingness on his part–Decree of sped fie performance declined. Second Appeal—Substantial Question of law—It cannot be laid down as a matter of rule that irrespective of the question/s formulated, hearing of the second appeal is open for any other substantial question of law, even if not formulated earlier

May 5, 2019 sclaw

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1017 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 783 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari Civil Appeal No.…

Specific Performance

Agreement to Sell—Concurrent findings of fact—The issue of readiness and willingness is the most important issue for considering the grant of specific performance of the contract and the same having been held (in favour or against the plaintiff) by the Courts below on appreciation of evidence; is binding even on Supreme Court

Mar 23, 2019 sclaw

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 630 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 608 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal No.…

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