1996 (4) TMI 510 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in performance of contract for purchase of land.
2. Failure to provide consideration in cash.
3. Readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
4. Essential terms of the contract.
5. Discretionary remedy of specific performance.

Analysis:

The case involves a dispute regarding a contract for the purchase of land in Delhi. The petitioner delayed the execution of the sale deed, which was a crucial aspect of the agreement. The respondent required cash urgently for his daughter's marriage, and the petitioner failed to provide the consideration in cash as agreed upon. The petitioner's lack of financial capacity to pay the purchase price was a significant issue. The court emphasized the importance of readiness and willingness to perform a contract, including the financial capability to fulfill the terms.

The court distinguished between readiness and willingness to perform a contract. It was noted that the petitioner did not have the necessary funds to pay the balance of consideration, which was a key requirement for performance. Despite producing some evidence of funds, it was insufficient to meet the contractual obligations. The failure to return the approved draft sale deed within the stipulated time further indicated the petitioner's lack of readiness and capacity to perform the contract.

Regarding the essential terms of the contract, the court highlighted that executing the sale deed within the specified period was crucial. The petitioner's argument that returning the approved draft sale deed fulfilled the essential terms was dismissed, as the timely execution of the sale deed was deemed essential. The High Court's decision to deny specific performance of the contract was upheld, considering the petitioner's failure to meet the essential terms within the agreed timeframe.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave petition, affirming the High Court's decision regarding the discretionary remedy of specific performance. The court concluded that the petitioner's actions demonstrated a lack of readiness and willingness to perform the contract, leading to the denial of specific performance as a remedy in this case.