In a recent judgment dated October 1, 2019 passed by the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Shivshankar Resources Ltd. & Ors. ("Appellants") vs. Shyama Enclave Pvt. Ltd. ("Respondent") & Ors. (APD No. 442 of 2017, G.A. No. 2768 of 2017, G.A. No. 1602 of 2018, C.S. No. 262 of 2001, ADP No. 443 of 2017, G.A. No. 2774 of 2017, G.A. No. 1603 of 2018 and C.S. No. 262 of 2001), the Hon'ble Court held that there needs to be a continuous readiness and willingness on the part of a person as a condition precedent for grant of the relief of specific performance.
Following is a summary of the judgment.
Brief facts:
One Sanjib Kumar Roy and Jamuna Bala Roy ("Erstwhile Owners") had entered into an agreement for sale dated January 22, 2000 with the Respondent ("Agreement") of the suit property to the extent of their respective shares in the said property. Thereafter, the Erstwhile Owners had entered into a supplementary agreement dated February 22, 2000 with the Respondent ("Supplementary Agreement") for varying and amending the Agreement. Subsequently, the Respondent had paid an amount of INR 8,49,722/- (Indian Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Two) as part consideration to the Erstwhile Owners.
In and between the years 2002-2004, the Erstwhile Owners had entered into various deeds of conveyances with the Appellants, by and under the Appellants purchased rooms/cubicles on the second and third floors of the suit property respectively.
Meanwhile, the Respondent had filed a suit for specific performance of the Agreement and the Supplementary Agreement before the single bench of this Hon'ble Court. The Learned Single Bench by an order dated June 29, 2017 inter alia held that the Appellants have failed to make out a case for refusing grant of the relief of specific performance of the 2 (two) agreements in favour of the Respondent, and were directed to re-convey the suit property in favour of the Respondent. The appeals were against the decision of the Learned Single Bench.
Judgment:
The Court laid down and reiterated the following principles:
In essence, the Hon'ble Court set aside the Learned Single Bench's view on 'readiness' and 'willingness' and opined that the plaintiff had failed to show its 'readiness' and 'willingness' to perform its obligations under the contract or its financial capacity to honour its obligations, and has therefore, not satisfied the requirements of Section 16(c) and Explanation (ii) to Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
This update has been contributed by Arka Majumdar (Partner) and Avin Sarkar (Associate).
Download Pdf
7A, 7th Floor, Tower C, Max House,
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 3,
New Delhi – 110020
The rules of the Bar Council of India do not permit advocates to solicit work or advertise in any manner. This website has been created only for informational purposes and is not intended to constitute solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work in any manner. By clicking on 'Agree' below, you acknowledge and confirm the following:
a) there has been no solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this website;
b) you are desirous of obtaining further information about us on your own accord and for your use;
c) no information or material provided on this website is to be construed as a legal opinion and use of this website will not create any lawyer-client relationship;
d) while reasonable care has been taken in ensuring the accuracy of the contents of the website, Argus Partners shall not be responsible for the results of any actions taken on the basis of information provided in this website or for any error or omission in the website; and
e) in cases where the user has any legal issues, the user must seek independent legal advice.