Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label Specific Relief Act 1963

Whether Service of the Bishop can be Labelled as a ‘Personal Service’ [CASE LAW]

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 14(1)(b) - the service of the Bishop is not a personal service.

Late Attempt to Improve Pleadings at the Appellate Stage is Only an Exercise in Futility [SC JUDGMENT]

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16 - In the present case, the plaintiff-appellant had failed to aver and prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The Trial Court made a rather assumptive observation that he had proved such readiness and willingness. Thereafter, the plaintiff sought leave to amend the plaint only when the ground to that effect was taken in the first appeal by the defendant. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view, it was too late in the day for the plaintiff to fill up such a lacuna in his case only at the appellate stage. In other words, the late attempt to improve upon the pleadings of the plaint at the appellate stage was only an exercise in futility in the present case.

Family Settlement which Settles Disputes within the Family should not be Lightly Interfered [CASE LAW]

Family Settlement - A family settlement which settles disputes within the family should not be lightly interfered with especially if the settlement has already been acted upon by some members of the family - Such settlements have to be treated differently from ordinary contracts and should not be lightly disturbed.

Maintainability of a Suit for Specific Performance by the Builder against the Owner [SC JUDGMENT]

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 14 - Contracts not specifically enforceable - Whether Section 14(3)(c) of the Act is a bar to a suit by a developer for specific performance of a development agreement between himself and the owner of the property ?

How to Exercise the Discretion to Grant Specific Performance of a Contract for Sale of Immovable Property [JUDGMENT]

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - S.20 - Discretion as to decreeing specific performance - When a Court considers a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property, once it is found that the agreement is genuine and the plaintiff had pleaded and proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, it is upon the Court to further consider whether the discretion to grant specific performance has to be exercised in terms of S.20 of the Specific Relief Act.

What is Anti-Suit Injunction : Whether Courts in India have Power to issue Anti-Suit Injunction [SC Judgment]

Anti-Suit Injunctions are meant to restrain a party to a suit/proceeding from instituting or prosecuting a case in another court, including a foreign court. Simply put, an anti-suit injunction is a judicial order restraining one party from prosecuting a case in another court outside its jurisdiction.

Specific Performance : Plaintiff must Plead & Prove his Readiness & Willingness to Perform his Part of the Contract all through [SC Judgment] | First Law

Specific Relief Act, 1963 -  Section 16(c) -  “readiness and willingness” -  the plaintiff must plead and prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract all through i.e., right from the date of the contract till the date of hearing of the suit.