Supreme Court of India Judgements

467750 Judgements hosted as on 06/05/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Specific Relief Act

Specific Relief Act

Refund of earnest/advance money requires specific pleading under S. 22(2) Specific Relief Act, even if specific performance is refused; forfeiture of earnest money is generally permissible upon purchaser’s default. Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills v. Tata Air Craft Ltd., (1969) 3 SCC 522 — Principles reiterated.; Videocon Properties Ltd. v. Bhalchandra Laboratories, (2004) 3 SCC 711 — Followed. ; Satish Batra v. Sudhir Rawal, (2013) 1 SCC 345 — Followed and applied. ; Central Bank of India v. Shanmugavelu, (2024) 6 SCC 641 — Followed.; Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Dass, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 49 — Distinguished regarding earnest money; Applied regarding penalty.; Maula Bux v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 554 — Distinguished regarding earnest money; Applied regarding penalty.; Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA, (2015) 4 SCC 136 — Considered and distinguished on facts.; Godrej Projects Development Ltd. v. Anil Karlekar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 222 — Cited.

May 4, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 617 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.R. SURESH Vs. R. POORNIMA AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 5822…

Specific Relief Act

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 6 – Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property – The appellants, owner of the property, allegedly evicted the respondent illegally and by force – The main issue was the maintainability of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the illegal dispossession – The appellants contended voluntary handover of possession and challenged the maintainability of the suit – The respondent filed a suit within six months of dispossession under Section 6 of the Act – The Trial Court decreed in favor of the respondent, and the High Court dismissed the appellant’s revision – The High Court concurred with the Trial Court on the illegal dispossession and maintainability of the suit – The appeal was dismissed based on concurrent findings and evidence on record – The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 345 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY MARUTI JADHAV AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. AMIT TATOBA SAWANT — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra…

Specific Performance Specific Relief Act

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.

Apr 22, 2023 sclaw

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…

You missed

Service

Under Rule 17, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, prior contractual service counts towards pension upon subsequent regularisation, subject to the employee opting to refund/forgo specified monetary benefits.

May 6, 2025 sclaw
I B C

Service of an IBC Section 8 demand notice upon Key Managerial Personnel at the Corporate Debtor’s registered office constitutes valid service on the company, emphasizing substance over technical form.

May 6, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings precludes conducting a ‘mini trial’ by assessing evidence credibility; consistency requires acknowledging coordinate bench decisions involving co-accused.

May 5, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Quashing FIR under 482 CrPC impermissible when complaint prima facie discloses cognizable offences; allegations accepted true, investigation not thwarted based on delay, civil suit, or witness status if complicity alleged.

May 5, 2025 sclaw