2025 SCC Vol. 3 Part 2
Bombay City Improvement Trust Transfer Act, 1925 (16 of 1925) — Ss. 48(a) and 51(2) — Poorer Classes Accommodation Scheme
Specific Relief Act
Never Reported Judgment| Purchaser cannot be said to be ready and willing to perform his part of contract, if he does not treat the contract as subsisting [(1953) 1 SCC 234]
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on personal bars to relief in specific performance of contract.
2024 SCC Vol. 2 Part 5
Constitution of India — Sch. X and Art. 145(3) — Power of Speaker/Deputy Speaker to initiate disqualification proceedings, when proceedings for removal
Never Reported Judgment| Vague and uncertain agreements in a contract are not capable of specific performance [(1952) 2 SCC 547]
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on specific performance of contract.
2023 SCC Vol. 10 Part 2
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302 and 201 — Circumstantial evidence — Last seen theory and recovery of weapon: In this case,
2023 SCC Vol. 8 Part 1
Advocates — Senior Advocates — Designation of: Guidelines issued by Supreme Court in Indira Jaising, (2017) 9 SCC 766 for greater objectivity
Delhi High Court refuses decree of specific performance in view of creation of third-party interests; Directs compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs
The principle governing the evidence in civil cases is that there should be a preponderance of the events which should be proved unlike in criminal matters, where the evidence have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the burden of proof is on the party which will suffer if such evidence is not proved.
Specific Performance and Determinable Contracts: A Comprehensive Analysis
by Vasanth Rajasekaran*
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 67
Delhi High Court denies injunction under S. 9 of A&C Act as it will delay the strengthening and overlaying of NH-48 initiated by NHAI
Sections 20-A and 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 expresses the legislative intent to not grant injunctions relating to infrastructure projects where delay may be caused by such an injunction. Thus, the role of Courts in this exercise is to interfere to the minimum extent so that public work projects are not impeded or stalled.
The Precedential Value of the Split Verdict in Rathi Steels
by Dormaan Jamshid Dalal†
Unregistered agreement to sell an admissible evidence in a suit for specific performance; Supreme Court upholds Madras High Court Judgment
Supreme Court said that as per proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument, subject to Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act.
Specific Relief| Supreme Court shows dismay over Trial Court & Telagana HC’s orders allowing “hopelessly delayed” application seeking extension of time filed after 853 days; sets aside order
The Supreme Court was unimpressed with the explanation given by the plaintiff for the delay of 853 days that he initially fell sick with Jaundice and was later confined to house with High Blood Pressure, Diabetes and other diseases. The petition had extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/-.
Specific Performance| Supreme Court’s split verdict over a party’s readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract
While Justice Shah stated that the Kerala High Court has erred in interfering with the judgment of Trial Court of passing a decree for specific performance; Justice Nagarathna affirmed the Judgment of the High Court.
Madras High Court | Courts will not interfere or set aside an arbitral award, merely because an alternative view is possible; Adopt a hands-off approach
Madras High Court: In an intra-Court appeal filed against the order of the single judge, whereby, the judge allowed the
Prospective Applicability of 2018 Amendment of Specific Relief Act, 1963; An issue that Requires Further Consideration
by Kingshuk Banerjee† and Arnav Mohanty††
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 70
Explained| Party willing to pay but has no funds: Will it amount to readiness and willingness for specific performance of a contract?
Supreme Court: In a suit for specific performance the Division Bench of Indira Banerjee* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., explained the
2022 SCC Vol. 7 Part 3
Advocates Act, 1961 — S. 16 — Procedure for designation of Senior Advocates: Clarification of Guidelines prescribed for Supreme Court
P&H HC | Application for rescission of contract ‘mandatory’ to avail the relief, as S. 28, Specific Relief Act, 1963 doesn’t confer indefeasible right
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Sudhir Mittal, J. dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners (in this case the judgment-debtors) against
Relief under S. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act: Can it be granted to a party who is not party to arbitration agreement? Read Utt HC’s ruling
Uttaranchal High Court: Emphasizing on the purpose and object of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Division bench of