https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770039 The SC dismissed the purchaser's appeal challenging forfeiture of advance money under a sale agreement. The Court held that Rs.20,00,000 termed as "advance money" was actually earnest money serving as guarantee for contract performance, not mere part-payment. When the purchaser failed to pay balance consideration within stipulated four months, vendors were justified in forfeiting the amount. The forfeiture clause was fair and equitable, imposing reciprocal obligations on both parties. The Court noted that financial losses to vendors exceeded the forfeited amount. Regarding alternative relief under Section 22 of 1963 Act, the Court held courts cannot grant refund of earnest money suo moto without specific prayer in plaint or amendment application, which purchaser never sought. en-us Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 May 2025 09:58:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770039 The SC dismissed the purchaser's appeal challenging forfeiture of advance money under a sale agreement. The Court held that Rs.20,00,000 termed as "advance money" was actually earnest money serving as guarantee for contract performance, not mere part-payment. When the purchaser failed to pay balance consideration within stipulated four months, vendors were justified in forfeiting the amount. The forfeiture clause was fair and equitable, imposing reciprocal obligations on both parties. The Court noted that financial losses to vendors exceeded the forfeited amount. Regarding alternative relief under Section 22 of 1963 Act, the Court held courts cannot grant refund of earnest money suo moto without specific prayer in plaint or amendment application, which purchaser never sought. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770039