Forfeiture - The Legal Chamber

Specific Performance Upheld: Supreme Court Reinstates Decree in Property Dispute

15Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Specific Performance Upheld: Supreme Court Reinstates Decree in Property Dispute

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by interfering with the first appellate court's findings of fact, particularly regarding additional payment and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness. The Court reiterated that time is not ordinarily the essence in immovable property contracts and that acceptance of further payment post-deadline constitutes a waiver of the right to forfeit earnest money, making the suit for specific performance maintainable without a separate declaratory relief. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Annamalai, entered into a registered sale agreement dated 08.01.2010 with Saraswathi (D-1) and Dharmalingam (D-2) for two property items. The total consideration was Rs. 4,80,000, of which Rs. 4,70,000 was paid as a...

Husband’s Second Marriage Leads Supreme Court to Use Special Power for Divorce

The Supreme Court, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The decree was granted subject to the husband paying a one-time permanent alimony of ₹1.25 crores to the wife, ensuring a complete settlement. Facts Of The Case: The marriage between the appellant-husband, A. Ranjithkumar, and the respondent-wife, E. Kavitha, was solemnized on February 15, 2009. Shortly thereafter, the couple relocated to the United States of America, where the husband was employed. A son was born from the union on April 7, 2010. However, the marital relationship soured, leading the husband to file a divorce petition on September 26, 2012, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. Th...

Supreme Court Quashes Life Ban on Kerala Cricketer, Slams “Non-Transparent” Ombudsman Process

The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman's proceedings lacked transparency and violated principles of natural justice by not providing the appellant with copies of orders and a fair hearing. The subsequent blacklisting by the cricket association, based on these flawed proceedings, was also set aside. The matter was remanded for a fresh hearing. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a former Ranji Trophy player and member of a district cricket association, filed an original application before the Ombudsman of the Kerala Cricket Association (KCA). He sought directions to frame and implement uniform model bye-laws for all district associations, based on the Lodha Committee recommendations, and to ensure elections were conducted in conformity with these bye-laws. The Ombudsman dismissed his app...