In Brief
A builder sought specific performance of a 1992 development agreement with property owners to construct a building complex in Kolkata, claiming the owners wrongfully cancelled the agreement. The Supreme Court held that while a developer can maintainably sue for specific performance of a development agreement (rejecting the literal reading of Section 14(3)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963), the developer must satisfy two key conditions: the work must be sufficiently defined, and the developer must have a substantial interest that cannot be remedied by money. The Court found the agreement's terms too vague (using phrases like "first class materials" and "similar condition" without clear definition) and held that the builder's quantifiable losses could be adequately compensated by damages. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.