Skip to main content

Even when time is not stipulated in a contract, the time period cannot be completely ignored

Cause Title : Yassh Deep Builders Llp vs Sushil Kumar Singh & Anr., Delhi High Court, 

Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023

Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh

Citied: Saradamani Kandappan vs S. Rajalakshmi & Ors ; (2011) 12 SCC 18

Background

On 15th May, 2018, the petitioner entered into a Collaboration Agreement with the respondent no. 1 for the development of some land belonging to the respondent at its own costs and expenses. Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, the petitioner was, inter alia, obliged to apply for licence/ approvals/ permits/ certification etc. for the development of the property in a timely and orderly manner. The Collaboration Agreement stood terminated by the respondent No.1 by way of a letter dated 29th September, 2021 which apparently was never received by the petitioner. 

It is the petitioner's case that on 14.12.2022 on receipt of a phone call regarding the said property for being put for sale, the petitioner made enquiry on 15.12.2022, when it was confronted with the Second Supplementary Collaboration Agreement which is a forged document. The petitioner argued that it has fulfilled its obligations under the Collaboration Agreement. Even otherwise, the petitioner has always been ready and willing to perform its part under the Collaboration Agreement and has been taking all necessary steps to obtain the required licence. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking interim protection qua the Collaboration Property submitting to the effect that there is a serious and genuine apprehension that the respondent No.1 and 2 would create third party rights in the Collaboration Property to defeat the rights of the petitioner.

The respondent argued that as per Clause 2.14 of the Second Supplementary Collaboration Agreement dated 17th August 2020, the petitioner was to obtain license of the project to be developed on the Collaboration Property by 15th December 2020, however, the petitioner failed to do so. It is further submitted that the petitioner even failed to obtain the required license for the project for almost 40 months, i.e., till the termination of the Collaboration Agreement. It is also submitted that there were consistent defaults on the part of the petitioner submitting to the effect that after execution of the petitioner failed to pay towards the part payment of the security amount as ITS cheque was dishonoured due to “ Insufficient Funds” .

Judgment

On the issue of specific performance, the court held that is trite law that continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the petitioner is a condition precedent for the grant of relief of Specific Performance. It is the bounden duty of the petitioner to prove its readiness and willingness by way of adducing evidence. The crucial facet has to be determined by considering all the circumstances including availability of funds and mere statements or averment in the present petition of readiness and willingness would not suffice. Under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, a distinction can be drawn between readiness and willingness to perform the contract. Both ingredients are necessary to be established for the grant of relief of the specific performance.

While readiness means the capacity of the petitioner to perform the contract, willingness relates to the conduct of the petitioner. 

It is not disputed that under the Collaboration Agreement (amended by the First Supplementary Agreement), the petitioner was required to get a licence from DTCP in a timely manner which it failed to get even after 5 years. Though this Court knows that the contract did not stipulate a particular time period within which this licence was to be obtained, it ought to have been obtained within a reasonable time period. Thus, the time period cannot be completely ignored. Also. cheques issued by the petitioner towards the part payment of the security amount were dishonoured due to “ Insufficient Funds” .

Capacity of the petitioner to execute the contract was always in doubt. It is not disputed that the petitioner was unable to make payment towards the earnest money as was initially agreed between the parties, which was one of the crucial factors while executing the First Supplementary Agreement.

Further, the petitioner had only paid an amount of Rs.4.21 Crores as earnest money while the price of the land is about at INR 120 Crores. Having paid an amount insignificant in comparison to the value of the property, the petitioner is not entitled to discretionary equitable relief of specific performance.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...