Aravind Kumar J - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance for Deal Breaching Construction Laws

27Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance for Deal Breaching Construction Laws

The Supreme Court held that an agreement mandating construction violating building laws is void and unenforceable. The illegality rendered specific performance impossible under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, as the unlawful object was essential to the contract. The Court affirmed that contracts contravening statutory provisions cannot be severed to remove their core illegal purpose. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Canara Bank, entered into an agreement with the respondent, K.L. Rajgarhia, on 27.12.1984 for the purchase of residential flats to be constructed on a plot in East of Kailash, Delhi. The total consideration was ₹32,07,500, of which approximately 90% (₹28,86,750) was paid upfront. The agreement stipulated the construction and delivery of eight flats and a basement with...

When a Contract Becomes Void: Supreme Court Explains the Limits of Specific Performance

25Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

When a Contract Becomes Void: Supreme Court Explains the Limits of Specific Performance

The Supreme Court held that an agreement to sell flats, which was contingent upon construction violating building bye-laws and the master plan, was unlawful and void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The Court ruled that specific performance cannot be granted for an illegal contract, and courts cannot rewrite or sever its essential, unlawful terms to make it enforceable. Facts Of The Case: In December 1984, Canara Bank entered into an agreement with K.L. Rajgarhia to purchase residential flats to be constructed on his plot in East of Kailash, Delhi, for ₹32,07,500. The bank paid approximately 90% of the consideration upfront. The agreement specified the construction and sale of eight flats and a basement, with completion required within 18 months. When the defendant failed to ...

Supreme Court Eases Burden of Proof for Railway Accident Victims in Landmark Ruling

24Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Eases Burden of Proof for Railway Accident Victims in Landmark Ruling

In this judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the burden of proof in railway accident compensation claims under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Court held that the initial burden on claimants can be discharged by affidavit and verified ticket records, shifting the onus to the Railways. Mere absence of a ticket or seizure memo does not defeat a legitimate claim, as the statutory regime is a welfare-oriented, no-fault liability system based on preponderance of probabilities. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the death of Sanjesh Kumar Yagnik on 19 May 2017. He was allegedly travelling from Indore to Ujjain by the Ranthambore Express (Train No. 12465) when, due to overcrowding, he was pushed from the moving train near Ujjain, sustaining fatal head injuries. The police regi...

Supreme Court Acquits Mother-in-Law, Cites Lack of Evidence in Dowry Harassment Case

1Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Mother-in-Law, Cites Lack of Evidence in Dowry Harassment Case

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of charges under Section 498-A IPC. It held that the conviction, based solely on uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses, was unsustainable. The Court emphasized that cruelty under Section 498-A must be proven by continuous or persistent conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide, which was not established by the prosecution evidence. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the death of Chandra Devi, who was found deceased in her matrimonial home on June 15, 2001. Her father, Dharmanand Joshi (PW-1), filed a complaint the next day, alleging that his daughter had committed suicide by hanging. He reported seeing wounds on her body and expressed suspicion about her death, stating that the deceased had previously told him her mother-in-l...

Justice Delayed, Not Denied: Supreme Court Orders Immediate Release of Compensation Certificates

6Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Justice Delayed, Not Denied: Supreme Court Orders Immediate Release of Compensation Certificates

The Supreme Court disposed of contempt petitions, affirming wilful disobedience of prior orders dated November 21, 2014, May 17, 2022, and December 10, 2024, regarding the issuance of DRCs/TDRs. The Court rejected attempts to re-examine previously decided issues or impose new conditions, emphasizing its limited contempt jurisdiction. DRCs/TDRs are to be released to complainants upon filing an undertaking, with the State retaining a first charge on any future compensation from civil appeals Facts Of The Case: This case involves contempt petitions filed due to alleged wilful disobedience of court orders dated November 21, 2014, May 17, 2022, and March 19, 2024. The Supreme Court, in a judgment dated December 10, 2024, found the contemnors guilty of wilful non-compliance despite purported c...