Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018
Section 10—Retrospective or prospective—Effect—When a substantive law is brought about by amendment, there is no assumption that same ought to be given retrospective effect—2018 Amendment to the Specific Relief Act is prospective and cannot apply to those transactions that took place prior to its coming into force.
[Paras 53 to 56]
Specific Relief Act, 1963
Section 12—Specific performance of part of contract—There was no inability on part of the parties to perform the rest of the contract or the remaining part was waived—Purchaser breached the essential condition of the contract, which altogether disentitles him to claim specific performance—No doubt that claim of purchaser is hit by delay and laches on their part as they did not take appropriate measures within the stipulated time and filing of the suit was delayed by almost five years—It is not an appropriate case for granting relief to the purchaser in terms of HYPERLINK "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/586382/" Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act as the claim of the purchaser is barred by delay, laches and limitation.
[Paras 77 & 78]
Section 14(1)(a)(Amended by Act of 2018)—Contracts not specifically enforceable—Adequacy of monetary damages as a ground for rejection of relief of specific performance/injunction has been done away with by the legislature in order to provide better compensation to the aggrieved party in from of the specific performance of the contract.
[Para 50]
Limitation Act, 1963
Article 54—Suit for specific performance—Bar of limitation—Contract was strictly conditioned on a time frame—Suit filed by purchaser was clearly barred by limitation in view of the first part of HYPERLINK "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/887242/" Article 54 of the HYPERLINK "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1317393/" Limitation Act and no amount of payment of advance could have remedied such a breach of condition.
[Paras 34 to 38]
Specific Performance
Agreement to sale—Essential terms of contract—Violation of—Where purchaser was not ready or willing to perform his part of the contract within the time stipulated, the specific performance cannot be granted for the entire contract—Contract was breached due to conduct of plaintiff/purchaser, who were not willing to perform contract after entering into a time sensitive agreement—Admitted fact that plaintiff had paid only part consideration—Though there is a forfeiture clause in the agreement, the Apex Court with a view of rendering complete justice between parties, deems it appropriate to direct the vendors/appellants to repay the said amount with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date such payment was made by the purchaser to the vendors, till the entire amount is paid back—Vendors further directed to pay the entire amount to the credit of the suit account within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
[Para 69 & 79]