The Apex Court in 09.10.2018, in SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWAL  v  MEENAKSHI SADHU & ORS. dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.

The appeal  hailed from the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta’s judgment.The appellant being a builder had  instituted a specific performance suit  arising from a  development agreement, against the owner of the premises(respondents), that was dismissed by the City Civil Court and The High Court .

According to the concerned agreement the respondents had made an approach to the appellant for constructing a building upon the land  and various terms were agreed upon by both the parties in connection  to it.

The appellant had alleged that on the agreement’s execution ,it was discovered that premises had been encumbered; further, many dues had arisen accompanied by other miscellaneous disputes. The respondent had been alleged to have  made  requests to the appellant for making payments while assuring reimbursement prior to  the sanctioning of the building  to be  obtained. The  appellant had  claimed  of paying  Rs.₹ 7,03,000/-, while  the respondent went on denying  agreement ‘s execution which was subsequently protested by the appellant   while requesting the respondent to hand him the authority  for securing  sanction of the building plans. Further, a notice was issued by the appellant to the respondent   for paying his share connected to the fees sanctioned.  A   letter was written by the owner    where he denied the notice content   and requesting for returning of all the documents  and to collect the concerned deposit. As such a suit was instituted in the Civil Court to seek a declaration and a permanent injunction in which an amendment   of the plaint was allowed by the Court, by seeking for specific performance . However, the suit was dismissed.

Being aggrievd by the City Civil Court’s   judgment and order, an appeal  in the High Court of Calcutta was filed that was also later on dismissed , on the ground  of the suit being not maintainable . An appeal was then made before   the Apex Court.

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA:

The Apex Court dismissed the appeal by upholding that the agreement  concluded between the parties as vague. However, the Hon’Ble  Supreme  Court of India,  did conclude that the developer did incur a massive expenditure in connection to the clearance  of dues and other expenses and hence entitled to  a compensation. However, there  had been a failure from the part of the developer in satisfying the requisites required under the Specific Relief Act  and as such specific performance could not be granted.

https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2009/16566/16566_2009_Judgement_09-Oct-2018.pdf