Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 29 OCTOBER 2018

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - Developer Can Avail Remedy Of Specific Performance With Respect To "Development Agreement"

The Appellant is a developer who entered into a Development Agreement in respect of premises situated at Kolkata, West Bengal, with Late Kalidas Sadhu, who was the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents herein.

IndiaReal Estate and Construction

The anomaly created using Literal Rule of Interpretation for Section 14(3)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 has been removed and rectified by adopting the Purposive Rule of Interpretation.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWAL
VS
MEENAKSHI SADHU & ORS.
ARISING OUT OF CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1129 OF 2012

FACTS

The Appellant is a developer who entered into a Development Agreement in respect of premises situated at Kolkata, West Bengal, with Late Kalidas Sadhu (hereinafter referred to as the Original Owner), who was the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents herein. Upon his death, his legal heirs were substituted as the existing Respondents, vide order dated 12.05.2018.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

This content is purely an academic analysis under "Legal intelligence series".

© Copyright AMLEGALS.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this document is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal opinion, advice or any advertisement. This document is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or corporate body. Readers should not act on the information provided herein without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances of a particular situation. There can be no assurance that the judicial/quasi-judicial authorities may not take a position contrary to the views mentioned herein.

See more popular content from