M/S P.R. DEB AND ASSOCIATES versus SUNANDA ROY

M/S P.R. DEB AND ASSOCIATES versus SUNANDA ROY

The respondent-plaintiff was not in a position to pay Rs. 4 lakhs within the stipulated or a reasonable time and insisted on the appellant first entering into an agreement with a proposed housing society which never came into existence. There was nothing in the agreement requiring the appellant to do so before receipt of the payment. The plaintiff must be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract at all material times, which was not the case. Therefore, the decree for specific performance could not be granted.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: P.R. Deb and Associates; Respondent/plaintiff: Sunanda Roy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of the Calcutta High Court Dated 26.5.93 in F.a. No. 127 of 1989
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decree for specific performance set aside; judgment and order of the trial court restored; respondent's appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Breach of Contract, Readiness and Willingness, Enforcement of Contract
Contract Law Property Law Specific Performance Breach of Contract Readiness and Willingness Enforcement of Contract

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P.R. Deb and Associates

Appellant/defendant

Sunanda Roy

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of the Calcutta High Court Dated 26.5.93 in F.a. No. 127 of 1989

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent-plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent-plaintiff was not in a position to pay Rs. 4 lakhs within the stipulated or a reasonable time and insisted on the appellant first entering into an agreement with a proposed housing society which never came into existence. There was nothing in the agreement requiring the appellant to do so before receipt of the payment. The plaintiff must be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract at all material times, which was not the case. Therefore, the decree for specific performance could not be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decree for specific performance set aside; judgment and order of the trial court restored; respondent's appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Civil Appeal No. 4631A of 1993 allowed; trial court's judgment and order restored; High Court's judgment and decree set aside.
  • Civil Appeal No. 4631 of 1993 dismissed as infructuous.