Can the court grant a conditional decree for specific performance of contract if vendor can not execute sale deed without permission of competent authority?

  It is seen that the permission for alienation is not a condition precedent to file the suit for specific performance. The decree of specific performance will always be subject to the condition to the grant of the permission by the competent authority. The petitioners having expressly admitted that the respondents have refused to abide by the terms of the contract, they should have asked for the relief for specific performance in the original suit itself. Having allowed the period of seven years elapsed from the date of filing of the suit, and the period of limitation being three years under Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, and amendment on the grounds set out, would defeat the valuable right of limitation accrued to the respondent. {Para 4}

SUPREME COURT

K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.

K. Raheja Constructions Ltd. S Vs. Alliance Ministries And Others

Spl. Leave Petn. (Civil No. 9397 of 1995

1st May, 1995

Citation: 1995 ALLMR ONLINE 586 (S.C.)

Print Page

Golden rule for interpretation of statute of Limitation

 The Appellants have justly relied on the exposition in the case of Lala Balmukund (supra), (in particular paragraphs 20 and 21), which has answered similar issue regarding the date of obtaining decree and while explicating the term "obtaining a copy", has held that the time will start only after the decree is drawn. It is apposite to reproduce the dictum in paragraph 19, which reads thus:

19. We do not wish to encumber this judgment with a detailed discussion of all the citations and the reasoning advanced therein in support of one or the other view. It will be sufficient to say that upon the language of Section 12(2) both the constructions are possible, but the one adopted by the majority of the courts, appears to be more consistent with justice and good sense. The Limitation Act deprives or restricts the right of an aggrieved person to have recourse to legal remedy, and where its language is ambiguous, that construction should be preferred which preserves such remedy to the one which bars or defeats it. A court ought to avoid an interpretation upon a statute of limitation by implication or inference as may have a penalising effect unless it is driven to do so by the irresistible force of the language employed by the Legislature.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 10222 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24862 of 2012)

Decided On: 28.03.2018

Mohinder Singh Vs.  Paramjit Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra, C.J.I. and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Citation:(2018) 5 SCC698.

Print Page

Whether conditional decree for specific performance of contract can be passed?

In Nirmala Anand v Advent Corporation
(P) Ltd,1 the Supreme Court held that a decree for specific performance can
always be made conditional. Usually, such a decree requires some specified
conditions to be fulfilled before the decree for specific performance is made
effective. There is, to my mind, no reason why, if the defendants are enjoined
to specifically perform an agreement and fail to do so, the plaintiffs should not
then be entitled to a decree in compensation or damages.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO.2170 OF 2010

Jayesh Gopaldas Sampat Vs  Paresh Satyendra Vohra and others 

CORAM : G.S.Patel, J.
DATED : Monday, 27th January 2014
Citation; 2014(6) MHLJ 259 Bom

Print Page

When court can pass conditional decree?

 Perhaps it is unusual that in a suit such as this, an order should be made
for specific performance and, in default, for damages. This is not a matter of
the Court being unable to compel specific performance. It is, rather, a question
of a defendant or judgment debtor refusing or failing to perform his obligation
not just under a contract, but under a decree of a court of competent
jurisdiction. That would leave a hapless plaintiff to seek what might perhaps be
an ineffective further remedy. It simply cannot be where the rules of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 drive a plaintiff in such a situation to yet another long
drawn out round of litigation in the executing court or elsewhere. A defendant
who does not even take the trouble to enter a defence, and against whom a
exparte decree is passed, must know that these decrees are not to be taken
lightly. Certainly, they cannot be ignored. Nor should a successful plaintiff be
asked to leave the Court with nothing more than a paper decree in his hands. A  conditional decree is, in my view, a permissible exercise of discretion only to ensure that the defendant against whom the decree is passed fulfills his contractual obligations to the plaintiffs. In Nirmala Anand v Advent Corporation
(P) Ltd,1 the Supreme Court held that a decree for specific performance can
always be made conditional. Usually, such a decree requires some specified
conditions to be fulfilled before the decree for specific performance is made
effective. There is, to my mind, no reason why, if the defendants are enjoined
to specifically perform an agreement and fail to do so, the plaintiffs should not
then be entitled to a decree in compensation or damages.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO.2170 OF 2010
Jayesh Gopaldas Sampat  Vs Paresh Satyendra Vohra

CORAM : G.S.Patel, J.
DATED : Monday, 27th January 2014
Citation;2014(5) ALLMR 205

Print Page