NDLI: Smt. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Anr. Vs. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1963 – ss. 10 12 Specific Performance – Limitation Act 1963 – Article 54 – Limitation period for Specific Performance – Specific Relief Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Specific Performance – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 54 – Limitation period for Specific Performance – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – ss. 10, 12 – Appellant herein (Purchaser) entered into an agreement with the Respondents herein (Vendors) in 1997 to purchase two stretches of land, and paid 90% of total amount by cash and cheque – Remaining 10% was to be paid within 3 months as per clause 3 of the agreement, which was defaulted by the appellant – However, appellant sent two notices to the respondents in 2000 and 2002 seeking performance of the agreement by agreeing to deposit the balance sale consideration – Thereafter, appellant filed a suit seeking specific performance in 2002 – Trial court dismissed the suit holding that it was barred by limitation – Appellant approached High Court – High Court held that the trial Court erred in making the distinction between time fixed for payment of sale consideration and time for performance of contract – Further, held that the purchaser was ready and willing to perform his contract, and through his acts, proved his bonafides by already paying 90% of the sale consideration within the stipulated period and by later depositing the balance amount in court – Also held that amended Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, which provides that specific performance shall be enforced by courts subject to conditions mentioned, shall apply retrospectively and therefore benefit the appellant – HC partly allowed the appeal and directed the respondents to register the suit property in favour of the appellant to the extent of the amount paid by the appellant, i.e., 90% of the total sale consideration, within a period of 3 months – Aggrieved, both appellant and respondents approached this Court – Held: Fixed time period was mandated by Clause 3 of the agreement and accordingly, the suit filed by the purchaser was clearly barred by limitation in view of the provision provided under Article 54 of the Limitation Act – Amended Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act brought by the amendment of 2018 was not mere procedural enactment, rather it had substantive principles built in it and thus, the same would not apply retrospectively – As far as entitled to the relief of specific performance is concerned, it is clear that the purchaser did not voluntarily adhere to the time stipulation under the contract – In order to bypass the condition of time being the essence, the purchaser invoked the standard of good faith – Unless such duty is expressly stipulated, good faith standard cannot be implicitly read into any contract – Prior to 2018 amendment, general standard of good faith to imply broader good faith obligations cannot be accepted to give a go-by to the explicit conditions for maintaining the sanctity of contract – Such broad standards will have potentially far-reaching consequences - The purchaser was not ready or willing to perform his part of the contract within the time stipulated and accordingly, specific performance cannot be granted for the entire contract – There is no doubt that the claim of appellant is hit by delay and laches on their part as they did not take appropriate measures within the stipulated time and filing of the suit was delayed by almost five years – Thus, no relief can also be granted to the appellant u/s. 12 of the Specific Relief Act – Respondents directed to repay the deposited amount with interest.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 865
Petitioner	Smt. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Anr.
Respondent	Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
SCR	[2022] 17 S.C.R. 416
Judgement Date	2022-08-25
Case Number	5822

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Smt. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Anr. Vs. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Ramzan Vs. Smt. Hussaini

Usha Devi & Ors. Vs. Ram Kumar Singh & Ors.

B.k. Sri Harsha (d) By L.r. & Anr. Vs. M/s Bharath Heavy Electricals Ltd

Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy Vs. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (dead) Thr Lrs. & Anr.

P.s. Ranakrishna Reddy Vs. M.k. Bhagyalakshmi and Anr.

Fatehji & Company & Anr. Vs. L.m. Nagpal & Ors.

Shamsu Suhara Beevi Vs. G. Alex and Anr

Surjit Kaur Vs. Naurata Singh and Anr.

Nanjappan Vs. Ramasamy &anr

Smt. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Anr. Vs. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.

Smt. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Anr. Vs. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Ramzan Vs. Smt. Hussaini

Usha Devi & Ors. Vs. Ram Kumar Singh & Ors.

B.k. Sri Harsha (d) By L.r. & Anr. Vs. M/s Bharath Heavy Electricals Ltd

Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy Vs. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (dead) Thr Lrs. & Anr.

P.s. Ranakrishna Reddy Vs. M.k. Bhagyalakshmi and Anr.

Fatehji & Company & Anr. Vs. L.m. Nagpal & Ors.

Shamsu Suhara Beevi Vs. G. Alex and Anr

Surjit Kaur Vs. Naurata Singh and Anr.

Nanjappan Vs. Ramasamy &anr

Smt. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Anr. Vs. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.