<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--generator='jetpack-16.0.1'-->
<!--Jetpack_Sitemap_Buffer_News_XMLWriter-->
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="//sclaw.in/news-sitemap.xsl"?>
<urlset xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9" xmlns:news="http://www.google.com/schemas/sitemap-news/0.9" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9 http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9/sitemap.xsd">
 <url>
  <loc>https://sclaw.in/2026/08/01/specific-relief-act-1963-section-20-specific-performance-discretionary-and-equitable-relief-clean-hands-grant-of-specific-performance-is-discretionar/</loc>
  <lastmod>2026-08-01T14:43:29Z</lastmod>
  <news:news>
   <news:publication>
    <news:name>Supreme Court of India  Judgements  </news:name>
    <news:language>en</news:language>
   </news:publication>
   <news:title>Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 20 — Specific performance — Discretionary and equitable relief — Clean hands — Grant of specific performance is discretionary, not automatic even where a valid contract subsists; a plaintiff must approach the Court with clean hands. Where the plaintiff&amp;#039;s spouse lodged a criminal complaint seeking recovery of the advance paid, alleging the vendor fraudulently suppressed a subsisting injunction, while simultaneously maintaining a civil suit for specific performance, such conduct amounts to blowing &amp;quot;hot and cold&amp;quot; and disentitles the plaintiff to equitable relief.</news:title>
   <news:publication_date>2026-08-01T14:43:29Z</news:publication_date>
   <news:genres>Blog</news:genres>
  </news:news>
 </url>
 <url>
  <loc>https://sclaw.in/2026/08/01/criminal-procedure-code-1973-crpc-section-299-absence-of-order-effect-on-conviction-where-no-order-under-s-299-was-ever-passed-at-the-stage-the-co-accused-w/</loc>
  <lastmod>2026-08-01T14:36:35Z</lastmod>
  <news:news>
   <news:publication>
    <news:name>Supreme Court of India  Judgements  </news:name>
    <news:language>en</news:language>
   </news:publication>
   <news:title>Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 299 — Absence of order — Effect on conviction — Where no order under S. 299 was ever passed at the stage the co-accused was tried (case having been split due to abscondence), the earlier deposition of a witness (since deceased) could not be relied upon to convict the accused apprehended and tried years later; identification by surviving eyewitnesses being doubtful and other witnesses having turned hostile, conviction based on such uncorroborated prior testimony unsustainable — appellant acquitted.</news:title>
   <news:publication_date>2026-08-01T14:36:35Z</news:publication_date>
   <news:genres>Blog</news:genres>
  </news:news>
 </url>
</urlset>
