Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Specific relief

SYED BASHEER AHMED versus M/S TINNI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

The High Court correctly found that the sale agreement was materially altered (inconsistent recitals and schedule and use of different inks), rendering the agreement tainted; the plaintiff failed to establish readiness and willingness to pay the full balance consideration required for specific performance (accounting and plaintiff's own concessions undermined the claim); Section 73 Evidence Act did not mandate expert examination in the circumstances; therefore the decree for specific performance could not be sustained and the appeal was rejected.

Source excerpt

  • Specific performance
  • Readiness and willingness to pay balance consideration
  • Material alteration in agreement
  • Tainted agreement
  • Section 73 indian evidence act, 1872
Read case analysis
Land acquisition

ESTATE OFFICER, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. versus NIRMALA DEVI

The respondents (oustees) are not entitled as a matter of legal right to allotment at the 1992 policy rates; at best they may seek allotment under the 2016 policy. Suits under Section 39 require the plaintiff to show enforceable legal obligation and to have complied with preconditions of the policy (e.g. prescribed application and earnest money) such that a court can exercise its discretionary power to grant mandatory relief. The Supreme Court directed HUDA to permit eligible respondents to apply under the 2016 policy within specified timelines and process those applications.

Source excerpt

  • Oustee allotment
  • Allotment policy (1992 vs 2016)
  • Mandatory injunction (s.39, specific relief act 1963)
  • Obligation (s.2(a), specific relief act 1963)
  • Ratio decidendi tests (wambaugh/inversion, halsbury, goodhart)
  • Rehabilitation and compensation
Read case analysis
Specific relief

K.R. SURESH versus R. POORNIMA & ORS.

The advance amount paid under the ATS was, in substance, earnest money — a guarantee for due performance — and given the explicit forfeiture clause, the four-month time stipulation and the surrounding urgency known to the purchaser, forfeiture by the vendors for the purchaser's breach was lawful; further, refund under Section 22(1)(b) must be specifically claimed (or sought by amendment under the proviso), which the appellant did not do, therefore no refund was warranted and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Specific performance
  • Forfeiture of earnest money
  • Refund of earnest money under section 22
  • Time is of the essence
  • Amendment of plaint
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

KANCHHU versus PRAKASH CHAND & ORS.

The High Court's order was set aside because the respondents failed to show sufficient cause for their prolonged absence and the seven-year delay in seeking recall was inordinate; the High Court incorrectly exercised Article 227 by effectively re-appreciating merits and not properly considering the Order IX Rule 13 application and the reasons given by the trial and appellate courts, rendering the High Court order indefensible; accordingly the appellate court order dismissing the attempt to set aside the ex parte decree was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Condonation of delay
  • Recall/restoration of orders
  • Order ix rule 13 cpc
  • Ex parte decree
  • Adjournments
  • Pleadings
Read case analysis
Specific relief

SANGITA SINHA versus BHAWANA BHARDWAJ AND ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the buyer's encashment of the demand drafts enclosed with the seller's cancellation letter constituted acceptance of repudiation and demonstrated lack of willingness to perform the agreement; because the seller had cancelled the agreement prior to institution of the suit and the plaintiff did not seek declaratory relief nor disclosed receipt and encashment of the refunds in the plaint, the agreement stood cancelled and the suit for specific performance was not maintainable; accordingly the decrees and sale deed were set aside and the buyer must be refunded the depo…

Source excerpt

  • Specific performance
  • Agreement to sell
  • Readiness and willingness to perform
  • Cancellation/repudiation of contract
  • Suppression of material facts
  • Locus standi
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

M/S B N PADMANABHAIAH AND SONS versus R N NADIGAR & ORS.

The earlier suit (O.S.No.80/1978) between the appellant and the State for permanent injunction was decided on the merits and attained finality; the State is therefore bound by that decree and the plaintiffs in the subsequent representative suit, who were not parties and had knowledge of the earlier litigation but did not seek to be impleaded, have no locus standi to maintain a suit in representative capacity to obtain declaratory reliefs on behalf of the State; accordingly the representative suit is not maintainable and must be dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Representative suit
  • Locus standi
  • Res judicata
  • Declaratory relief
  • Judicial finality
  • Government land
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST AND ORS. versus SHRIMANT CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE AND ANOTHER

On a meaningful reading of the plaint and the documents relied upon, the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation: the principal transfers (court auction in 1938 and registered sale deed in 1952) gave constructive notice and/or deemed knowledge to the plaintiff or his predecessors, the plaintiff’s alleged knowledge date (02.03.2007) is fictional, and the pleaded fraud is vague and only supports a claim of voidable rather than void instruments; accordingly the plaint was rightly rejectable under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC and the trial and High Court orders refusing rejection were set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Order vii rule 11(d) cpc
  • Rejection of plaint
  • Limitation act articles 58, 59, 60, 65
  • Constructive notice (t.p. act s.3)
  • Registered document presumption
  • Voidable vs void transactions
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

JAICHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus SAHNULAL & ANR.

The High Court erred in admitting and deciding the second appeal on a non-substantial question of law and in disturbing the well-reasoned findings of the first appellate court; under Section 100 CPC the High Court cannot substitute its view for that of the first appellate court except on limited legal grounds, and the impugned High Court order was set aside accordingly; instead of granting specific performance the Supreme Court directed refund of a quantified amount with conditional restoration of the trial decree if repayment is not made.

Source excerpt

  • Second appeal
  • Substantial question of law
  • Framing of substantial question of law
  • Scope of section 100 cpc
  • Specific performance
  • Readiness and willingness
Read case analysis
Specific relief

MANJIT SINGH & ANR. versus DARSHANA DEVI & ORS.

The High Court correctly held that the appellants were not bona fide purchasers under Section 19(b) because they failed to discharge the onus to prove purchase in good faith and without notice: they abstained from making necessary inquiries, the payment particulars were unexplained and possession/encumbrance matters gave constructive notice. Good faith requires both honesty and due care; accordingly specific performance of the prior oral agreement was decreed and the appeal to this Court was dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Section 19(b) specific relief act
  • Good faith
  • Bona fide purchaser for value without notice
  • Specific performance of oral agreement of sale
  • Onus of proof on subsequent purchaser
  • Constructive notice
Read case analysis
Specific relief

ALAGAMMAL AND ORS. versus GANESAN AND ANR.

The agreement fixed a six-month period for payment of the balance consideration and the respondents did not pay or offer to pay the balance within that period; subsequent payments claimed were not conclusively proved and forensic evidence undermined endorsements; acceptance of late payments was not established and, even if accepted, would give rise to a claim for recovery of money or damages but not to specific performance where the vendor had already executed a sale deed in favour of a third party which was not challenged; accordingly time remained the essence and no enforceable right to spe…

Source excerpt

  • Specific performance
  • Time is essence of contract
  • Agreement for sale
  • Readiness and willingness (s.16(c) specific relief act)
  • Effect of subsequent payments
  • Sale to third party
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.