NDLI: Sushil Kumar Agarwal Vs. Meenakshi Sadhu & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Specific Relief Act 1963
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.14(3)(c)(i) and (ii) – Specificperformance of contract under – Appellant-developer andpredecessor-in-interest of the respondents entered into adevelopment agreement for construction of a building on the landof the respondents – Respondent denied execution of the agreement– Appellant filed for specific performance of the contract againstthe respondent – Held: The appellant-developer need to satisfy thetwo conditions laid out in sub clause (i) and (ii) of s.14(3)(c), forthe suit for specific performance to be maintainable against theowner – The clauses 8, 13, 20 and 22 of the agreement had notclearly brought out, the exact extent of work to be carried out bythe developer and the obligation of the parties – Parties had notclearly defined, inter alia, the nature of material to be used, therequirements of quality, structure of building, sizes of flats andobligations of the owner after the plan is sanctioned – Also, clause9 of the agreement stated that the owner shall pay the contractorcosts, expenses along with agreed remuneration only aftercompletion of the building on receiving the possession – However,exact amount of remuneration payable by the owner to the contractorwas not found in the agreement – Agreement between the partieswas vague, so the first condition in s.14(3)(c)(i) was not fulfilled –Furthermore, the developer had incurred an expenditure ofRs.18,41,000/- towards clearing outstanding dues, security depositand development, incidental and miscellaneous expenses – Thealleged losses/damages incurred by the plaintiff could be quantifiedand recompensed with – Thus, developer had failed to satisfy theconditions under sub-clause (i) and (ii) of s.14(3)(c) of the Act – Insuch a case, specific performance could not be granted.Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.14(3)(c)(iii) – Interpretation of– Held: Anomaly is created by the use of the words “the defendanthas, by virtue of the agreement, obtained possession of the whole or any part of the land” in s.14(3)(c)(iii) – Under a developmentagreement, an interest in the property may have been created infavour of the developer – If the developer is the plaintiff and thesuit is against the owner, strictly applied, clause(iii) would requirethat the defendant should have obtained the possession under theagreement, however, the owner is in possession of the land by virtueof the lawful title, the defendant-owner cannot be said to haveobtained possession of the land by way of the agreement – Thiswould lead to an anomalous situation where the condition ins.14(3)(c)(iii) would not be fulfilled in the case of a suit by adeveloper – Thus, purposive interpretation has to be given tos.14(3)(c)(iii), departing from the literal rule of interpretation – Bygiving a purposive interpretation to s.14(3)(c)(iii), the anomaly andabsurdity created by the third condition will have no applicabilityin a situation where the developer who has an interest in the property,brings a suit for specific performance against the owner – Thedeveloper will have to satisfy the two conditions laid out in subclause (i) and (ii) of Section 14(3)(c), for the suit for specificperformance to be maintainable against the owner – This will ensurethat both owners and developers can avail of the remedy of specificperformance under the Act – Interpretation of Statutes – Purposiverule of Interpretation
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2018 INSC 939
Petitioner	Sushil Kumar Agarwal
Respondent	Meenakshi Sadhu & Ors.
SCR	[2018] 12 S.C.R. 756
Judgement Date	2018-10-09
Case Number	1129

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

Sushil Kumar Agarwal Vs. Meenakshi Sadhu & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

M. Meenakshi and Ors. Vs. Metadin Agarwal(d) By Lrs. and Ors.

Kumar Dhirendra Mullick and Ors. Vs. Tivoli Park Apartments (p) Ltd.

Nahar Singh Vs. Harnak Singh and Ors.

Narender Singh Vs. Jai Bhagwan and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Pandey and Ors Vs. Gulbahar Sheikh and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Srivastav Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Sita Ram and Ors. Vs. Radhey Shy Am

M.m.s. Investments, Madurai and Ors. Vs. V. Veerappan and Ors.

Ramankutty Guptan Vs. Avara

Sushil Kumar Agarwal Vs. Meenakshi Sadhu & Ors.

Sushil Kumar Agarwal Vs. Meenakshi Sadhu & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

M. Meenakshi and Ors. Vs. Metadin Agarwal(d) By Lrs. and Ors.

Kumar Dhirendra Mullick and Ors. Vs. Tivoli Park Apartments (p) Ltd.

Nahar Singh Vs. Harnak Singh and Ors.

Narender Singh Vs. Jai Bhagwan and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Pandey and Ors Vs. Gulbahar Sheikh and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Srivastav Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Sita Ram and Ors. Vs. Radhey Shy Am

M.m.s. Investments, Madurai and Ors. Vs. V. Veerappan and Ors.

Ramankutty Guptan Vs. Avara

Sushil Kumar Agarwal Vs. Meenakshi Sadhu & Ors.