LexMIS. CITADEL FINE PHARMACEUTICALS versus MIS. RAMANIYAM REAL ESTATES P. LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 605 ·MIS. CITADEL FINE PHARMACEUTICALS v. MIS. RAMANIYAM REAL ESTATES P. LTD. & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 6437 of 2011) AUGUST 08, 2011 [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s. 9 - Specific Performance A B of Contract - Non-performance by plaintiff of its obligation under the contract within stipulated time - Effect of - C Defendant-vendor, a partnership firm, owned 66 cents of land - It entered into an agreement for sale of said land for consideration of Rs. 1 crore with plaintiff-purchaser, a ·company engaged in the business of constructing buildings - Of the said 66 cents, however, 19 cents were considered excess D urban vacant land under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act - As per clause 7 of agreement, it was the plaintiff's responsibility to have the land cleared for sale · from the urban land ceiling authorities - However plaintiff failed to get such clearance from the Urban Land Ceiling E Authorities within stipulated time - Defendant-vendor cancelled the agreement - Suit for specific performance - Decreed by Single judge of High Court - Division Bench partly allowed appeal of defendant holding that plaintiff- respondents could be given relief of specific performance F only to the extent of 47 cents of lands that were not part of the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Act - Held: In the instant case, prior to signing of the agreement, the terms were discussed between the parties and the plaintiff-purchaser willingly took upon itself the burden of obtaining clearance from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities within the time G stipulated in the agreement - The parties clearly intended time to· be of the essence of the contract (agreement) which was a/so evident from the commercial nature of the transaction 605 H 606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R A and the surrounding circumstances - Since the plaintiff did not discharge its burden within the time specified it was not entitled to a specific performance of the contract - Moreover, prior to filing of the suit, the defendant-vendor, in terms of the agreement, had returned the earnest money of Rs.10 lakhs B by sending an· accounts payee cheque of such amount in favour of the plaintiff under registered post which was refused by the plaintiff and yet the plaintiff-purchaser made averment in the plaint that the defendant-vendor be directed to return the advance amount of Rs. 10 lakhs with interest - C Suppression by the plaintiff of the fact that it refused to accept the said cheque of Rs.10 /akhs was a material fact - On that ground also the plaintiff-purchaser was not entitled to any relief in its suit of specific performance - Approach of the High Court both by Single Judge and the Appellate Bench not 0 sustainable - Appeal of defendant-vendor allowed while appeal of plaintiff-purchaser dismissed - Cortract Act, 1872 - s.55 - Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1978. Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Plea for discretionary relief E of specific performance - Suppression of material fact by the plaintiff - Effect of - Held: When discretionary remedy is prayed for by a party, such party must come to court on proper disclosure of facts - The plaint filed before the Court in such cases must state all facts with sufficient candour and clarity - F Where the plaintiff is shown to have materially misled the court or to have abused its process, or to have attempted to do so, the discretionary relief of specific performance can be denied to him - To enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of a material G fact - However, what is a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the suitor to obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case - Material fact would mean a fact material for the purpose of determination of the tis. H CITADEL FINE PHARMACEUTICALS v. RAMANIYAM REAL 607 ESTATES P. LTD. Words and Phrases - Material fact - Meaning of. A Mis. Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals (defendant no.1), a partnership firm, owned 66 cents of land. It entered into an agreement for sale of the said land for a consideration of Rs.1 crore with Mis. Ramaniyam Real Estates Private 8 Limited (plaintiff), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of constructing buildings. In pursuance
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.