Legal Provisions Involved: Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; principles of earnest money and forfeiture under the Indian Contract Act, 1872; Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Judgement By: Supreme Court of India.
Judge/Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Facts
Subhash Aggarwal agreed to buy a property in Delhi for ₹6.11 crores and paid ₹90 lakhs in advance. Later, disputes arose as the sellers did not complete certain formalities. The buyer filed a case seeking specific performance of the agreement. The Trial Court ruled in his favour, but the High Court later refused specific performance and allowed forfeiture of part of the amount. The matter remained pending for about 17 years.
Key Legal Provisions
- Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
- Principles of earnest money and forfeiture under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
- Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Issues Raised
Whether the buyer was financially ready to pay the balance amount, and what relief should be granted when both parties were at fault.
Arguments of the Case
The buyer argued that the sellers breached the agreement. The sellers claimed the buyer never showed he had enough funds to complete the purchase.
Judgement
The Supreme Court held that the buyer failed to prove readiness, so specific performance could not be granted. However, allowing full forfeiture would be unfair. Using its special powers, the Court ordered the sellers to pay ₹3 crores to the buyer as compensation to settle the dispute.
Click here to VIEW the full judgement.
