In Brief
A seller refused to complete a property sale agreed in 1978. The buyer sued for specific performance, but the lower courts rejected the claim, holding that the agreement's omission of the word 'specific performance'—though present in the authorization letter—meant the remedy was barred. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that mere omission of such language does not prevent specific performance. Section 23 of the Specific Relief Act protects the right to specific performance unless the contract explicitly gives the defaulting party an option to pay damages instead. The Court found the earlier authority relied upon (Dadarao) was decided per incuriam and distinguished it. Specific performance was ordered, with the buyer to pay Rs. 10 crores by settlement.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.