P. D'SOUZA versus SHONDRILO NAIDU

P. D'SOUZA versus SHONDRILO NAIDU

Finding of fact by High Court, based on materials on record, that respondent was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract validated; damages clause did not bar specific performance; escalation in price and alleged hardship were not sufficient grounds to refuse decreeing specific performance, as hardship was foreseeable and not pleaded before High Court.

Parties
Appellant Defendant: P. D'Souza; Respondent Plaintiff: Shondrilo Naidu
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Readiness and Willingness, Discretionary Relief, Damages Clause, Hardship, Escalation of Prices
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Specific Performance Readiness and Willingness Discretionary Relief Damages Clause Hardship +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P. D'Souza

Appellant Defendant

Shondrilo Naidu

Respondent Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract for specific performance
  2. 2 Effect of damages clause on maintainability of suit for specific performance
  3. 3 Whether escalation of price and hardship to seller constitutes ground to refuse specific performance

Ratio Decidendi

Finding of fact by High Court, based on materials on record, that respondent was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract validated; damages clause did not bar specific performance; escalation in price and alleged hardship were not sufficient grounds to refuse decreeing specific performance, as hardship was foreseeable and not pleaded before High Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Decree for specific performance of contract in favor of respondent upheld
  • No order as to costs