9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Specific performance of a contract of sale, nature of contract, contingency, damages.
In this case, the appellant appealed against the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale for a property in New Delhi. The agreement required the vendor to obtain permission from the Chief Commissioner for the sale. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing the incomplete nature of the agreement due to the lack of permission. However, the High Court held that there was a completed contract subject to the Chief Commissioner's sanction. The High Court emphasized the vendor's obligation to obtain permission and faulted her for withdrawing the application. The High Court granted specific performance of the contract, directing the vendor to reapply for permission. The Court also awarded damages in case the permission was refused. The appellant argued that the contract was contingent and unenforceable, but the Court disagreed, emphasizing the parties' agreement to be bound by the terms. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal and directing the vendor to reapply for permission within a specified timeframe. The Court rejected additional pleas raised by the appellant that were not presented in the High Court, emphasizing the importance of raising all relevant issues at the appropriate stage. Overall, the judgment revolved around the issue of specific performance of a contract of sale for a property in New Delhi. The key point of contention was whether the contract was contingent and incomplete due to the lack of permission from the Chief Commissioner. The trial court dismissed the suit, focusing on the incomplete nature of the agreement. However, the High Court disagreed, deeming the contract completed subject to the Chief Commissioner's sanction. The High Court emphasized the vendor's obligation to obtain permission and faulted her for withdrawing the application. The High Court granted specific performance of the contract, directing the vendor to reapply for permission within a specified timeframe. The Court also awarded damages in case the permission was refused. The appellant argued that the contract was contingent and unenforceable, but the Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the parties' agreement to be bound by the terms. The Court dismissed the appeal, directing the vendor to reapply for permission and conveying the property to the plaintiffs if permission was granted. The Court also rejected additional pleas raised by the appellant that were not presented in the High Court, underscoring the importance of raising all relevant issues at the appropriate stage.
|
