unenforceable contract - 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

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 Denies Specific Performance Over Tainted Agreement: Readiness to Pay Not Enough

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of specific performance, ruling that a material alteration in the sale agreement—visibly apparent from the use of different ink for a property's description—vitiated the contract. Courts are not always obligated to seek expert opinion under Section 73 of the Evidence Act when such an alteration is plainly discernible upon a mere perusal of the document itself. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiff-appellant, Syed Basheer Ahmed, entered into a sale agreement dated July 15, 1984, with the first defendant for the purchase of two properties: Item No. 1 (owned by the first defendant) and Item No. 2 (owned by a third party). The total agreed consideration was Rs. 56,000/-, with an advance of Rs. 1,000/- paid. The agreement stipulated that the sale deed was to be ...