K.NARENDRA versus RIVIERA APARTMENTS (P) LTD.

K.NARENDRA versus RIVIERA APARTMENTS (P) LTD.

The Supreme Court held that though the agreement was valid when entered into, subsequent statutory developments, failure to secure necessary sanctions, and inaction by the purchasers rendered specific performance impossible and would result in unforeseeable hardship to the seller (appellant). The Court exercised its discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act to refuse specific performance, instead awarding compensation equivalent to the amount paid, with interest, as just and reasonable relief in the circumstances.

Parties
Appellant: K. Narendra; Respondent: Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeals From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decree for specific performance refused; compensation awarded.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Discretion in Decreeing Specific Performance, Compensation in Lieu of Specific Performance, Contract Frustration, Comparative Hardship
Specific Relief Contract Law Specific Performance Discretion in Decreeing Specific Performance Compensation in Lieu of Specific Performance Contract Frustration Comparative Hardship

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K. Narendra

Appellant

Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeals From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 25-7-1972 should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the contract has become impossible of performance due to statutory changes and acquisition
  3. 3 Whether compensation in lieu of specific performance should be awarded

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that though the agreement was valid when entered into, subsequent statutory developments, failure to secure necessary sanctions, and inaction by the purchasers rendered specific performance impossible and would result in unforeseeable hardship to the seller (appellant). The Court exercised its discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act to refuse specific performance, instead awarding compensation equivalent to the amount paid, with interest, as just and reasonable relief in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decree for specific performance refused; compensation awarded.

Orders

  • Suit for specific performance dismissed.
  • Appellant to return consideration paid by respondent with interest @ 12% p.a. from date of payment till refund.