Skip to main content

Time cannot be presumed to be essence of the contract in sale of immovable properties

Cause Title : Gaddipati Divija & Anr. Vs Pathuri Samrajyam & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4206-4207 Of 2011, Supreme Court Of India

Date of Judgment/Order : 18/4/23

Corum : Krishna Murari; J., Sanjay Karol; J.

Citied: 

  1. N.P. Thirugnanam vs Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao & Ors, 1995 (5) SCC 115
  2. U.N. Krishnamurthy (since deceased) Thr. Lrs. vs A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 840
  3. Nanjappan vs Ramasamy & Anr., (2015) 14 SCC 341
  4. Jaswinder Kaur vs Gurmeet Singh & Ors, 2017 (12) SCC 810
  5. Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712
  6. Ardeshir H. Mama vs Flora Sassoon, AIR 1928 PC 208
  7. Syed Dastagir vs T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty, (1999) 6 SCC 337
  8.  Aniglase Yohannan vs Ramlatha & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 534

Background

One G. Venugopala Rao had contracted with the Respondent for sale of some immovable property against which advance was paid by the Respondent. When after 4 months, Mr. Rao demanded the remaining money, the Respondent refused alleging failure on part of Mr. Rao to demarcate the property and also not disclosing that there is an encumbrance on the property. While several litigations were going on, Mr. Rao passed away. The Respondent filed a suit against his heirs claiming specific performance of the contract which was partially rejected by the Trial court. On appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal and decreeing the suit for specific performance. Hence this appeal filed by the heirs alleging that the Respondents were not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.  

Judgment

The Supreme Court however agreeing with the High Court held that :-
  • As stipulated under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (before 2018 amendment), the Respondents had averred before the High Court that she was always ready and willing to perform their part of contract with regard to the payment of the balance sale consideration and this evidence was not challenged by the Appellants. When a fact has been stated by witness and the same has not been challenged, it can be said that such a fact is admitted.
  • Mere stipulation of time would not make time the essence of the contract.
  • In case of sale of immovable property normally the time may not be essence of the contract.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more