Skip to main content

Mere delay by itself cannot be the sole factum to deny specific performance

Cause Title : Dhansukhlal Rambhai Patel vs Dhansukhlal Nagindas Kapadia, R/Second Appeal No. 42 Of 1990, High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad

Date of Judgment/Order : 26/08/2022

Corum : Honourable Dr. Justice A. P. Thaker

Citied: K. Narendra V. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd. reported in (1999) 5 SCC 77

Background

The plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of the contract against the defendants. The main defense of the defendants is regarding execution of such document under misrepresentation or fraud committed by the plaintiff taking undue advantage of the weak eye sight of the respondent no.1. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence, the First Appellate Court has set aside the impugned judgment of the Trial Court and has passed the decree of specific performance of contract.

Judgment

The High Court observed that the First Appellate Court has properly appreciated the entire evidence on record and its order also reveals that when the Trial Court has accepted the version of the plaintiff regarding execution of the agreement to sell by the defendants, then, as a consequence, thereof, the decree of specific performance needs to be passed, in view of the amended section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. Of course prior to the amendment of Section 20, the grant of relief of specific performance was discretionary one.

Deciding against the Appellant and referring to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Narendra V. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd. reported in (1999) 5 SCC 77, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the proposition in para 29 thereof regarding section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the High Court held that in the present case, the appellant has neither pleaded hardship nor produced any evidence to show that it will be inequitable to order specific performance of the agreement. The only plea raised by the defendant-appellant is regarding execution of the agreement to sell by fraud or misrepresentation and/ or taking undue advantage of the weak eye sight of the defendant no.1. Thus, even under the amended section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the discretionary relief of granting specific performance of the contract needs to be passed against the defendant no.1. Moreover, it is also well settled law that mere delay by itself, without more, cannot be the sole factum to deny specific performance.

Considering the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court, it is crystal clear that the First Appellate Court has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned decree of specific performance of a contract against the defendant-appellant.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more