In Brief
A builder sued for specific performance of a development agreement for constructing a building on the owner's land. The High Court dismissed the suit, holding Section 14(3)(c) of the Specific Relief Act barred suits by developers. The Supreme Court held that while the literal reading of Section 14(3)(c)(iii) creates an anomaly, purposive interpretation permits developers with a property interest to sue; however, they must still satisfy conditions (i) precision of work description and (ii) inadequacy of monetary relief. On the facts, the agreement was a pure construction contract creating no property interest in the developer, with vague work specifications and quantifiable losses. Specific performance was denied.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.