COROMANDEL INDAG PRODUCTS (P) LTD. versus GARUDA CHIT & TRADING CO. P. LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 12 S.C.R. 115 · Decided: 16-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 12 S.C.R. 115 
COROMANDEL INDAG PRODUCTS (P) LTD. 
v. 
GARUDA CHIT & TRADING CO. P. LTD. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7021 of 2003) 
AUGUST 16, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963: s.16(c) -
Specific 
performance - Respondent-vendor agreed to sell its property 
A 
B 
to the appellant - In terms of agreement of sale, an advance 
C 
of Rs.2 lacs was paid and the balance was payable in three 
short intervals - Respondent was required to furnish the 
documents of title and income tax clearance certificate -
Appellant requested the respondent to furnish solvency 
certificate and exemption certificate from urban land ceiling 
D 
authorities which were not furnished by respondent - Suit for 
specific performance by appellant - Held: It is incumbent on 
the party, who wants to enforce the specific performance of a 
contract, to aver and prove that he has performed or has 
a/ways been ready and willing to perform the essential terms 
E 
of the contract - Respondent explained the urgency and the 
need to sell the property and dire need of money for their 
commercial transactions - An advance of Rs. 2 lakhs was 
· made and further sums were paid in short intervals and time 
for completion of transaction was extended - The payment F 
of money in short intervals and also the extension of time for 
completion of the transaction within the prescribed period 
clearly showed that both the parties wanted to complete the 
transaction as early as possible without further extension and 
the parties intended to treat the time as essence of the contract 
G 
- The matter got delayed only due to the non-production of 
exemption certificate from urban land ceiling authorities -
In 
the Agreement there was no specific reference to the 
production of an order from the competent authority under the 
. 115 
H 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 
A Urban Land Ceiling Act with regard to exemption -
The 
lawyers of the appellant had perused all the relevant 
documents and on their advise, draft sale deed was prepared 
and that too after proper inspection of the site and building -
· The information sought for by the appellant was only to delay 
B the transaction - Appellant failed to prove that it was always 
ready and willing to perform in terms of s.16(c) of the Act -
Suit for specific performance liable to be dismissed. 
The appellant-company required property for 
establishing Research and Development Centre. 
C Respondent-company desired to sell its property 
measuring 12 grounds 33 sq. feet with buildings. The 
appellant offered a price of Rs.82 lacs which was 
accepted by the respondent for sale of its property. The 
agreement of sale was executed between them on 
D 28.8.1981 and an advance of Rs.2 lacs was paid. The 
appellant called upon the respondents to furnish the 
documents of title, the details of the encumbrances on 
the property, if any and also Income Tax Clearance 
Certificate as provided in the agreement of sale. The 
E respondents furnished the Income Tax Clearance 
Certificate and promised to furnish the other required 
documents very soon. They further demanded a further 
payment of Rs.10 lacs to which the appellant did not 
agree. As the respondents did not furnish the required 
F documents, the appellant again called upon the 
respondents to furnish the required documents. Instead 
of furnishing the documents, the respondents called 
upon the appellant to expedite the sale. Thereafter, the 
appellant requested the respondents to furnish the 
G solvency certificate and exemption certificate from urban 
land ceiling authorities. The respondents did not furnish 
the documents till the end of 1981 and the appellant filed 
a suit for specific performance before the High Court. 
H 
The Single Judge of the High Court decreed the suit 
COROMANDEL INDAG PRODUCTS (P) LTD. v. GARUDA 
117 
CHIT & TRADING CO. P. LTD. 
and directed the respondents to execute the sale deed 
A 
. in favour of the appellant and granted three months time 
to the .appellant to pay, the balance of the sale 
consideration. The Division Bench of the High Court 
allowed the appeal. The instant appeal was filed 
challenging the order of the High Court. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HE"'....D: 1. In the Agreement for Sale dated 28.08.1981, 
in the beginning, the Vendor-Respondents specifically 
asserted that they were the sole and absolute owner and 
C 
in exclusive possession and enjoyment of all the land 
me
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.