TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance in Breach of Contract Appeal</h1> <h3>Manoharakumari Versus Anitha & Anr</h3> Manoharakumari Versus Anitha & Anr - TMI Issues:Delay as the sole ground for rejection of plea of specific performance of contract.Analysis:The case involved an agreement of sale between the Plaintiff and the 1st defendant for a property. The agreement required permission from the court for the sale due to the involvement of minor defendants. The 1st defendant's husband, the original owner, had passed away, and the defendants inherited the property. The plaintiff was willing to fulfill the contract, but the defendants delayed the process. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, which was initially dismissed by the Trial Court. The High Court, while finding in favor of the plaintiff on all issues, denied specific performance and ordered a refund with interest. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.The appellant argued that delay alone should not be a ground for denying specific performance, especially when the defendant breached the contract, and the plaintiff was ready to perform. The appellant claimed that the High Court erred in not considering established law and facts favoring specific performance. On the other hand, the respondents supported the lower courts' decisions, stating they correctly analyzed the evidence.The Supreme Court reviewed the case records, including the agreement, pleadings, and judgments. They noted that the appellant promptly fulfilled her obligations and was willing to perform the contract. The Court held that delay alone cannot justify refusing specific performance. Despite the High Court finding in favor of the appellant on all aspects, it erroneously denied specific performance and ordered a refund. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's reasoning was flawed and ordered specific performance in favor of the appellant, setting aside the High Court's decision.Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granting specific performance of the contract in favor of the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
