{"id":313762,"date":"2024-02-11T11:00:58","date_gmt":"2024-02-11T05:30:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=313762"},"modified":"2024-02-11T10:59:50","modified_gmt":"2024-02-11T05:29:50","slug":"sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Never Reported Judgment| Vague and uncertain agreements in a contract are not capable of specific performance [(1952) 2 SCC 547]"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In an appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment of the Bombay High Court (‘the High Court’), the three-judges bench of Mehr Chand Mahajan, S.R. Das and N.H. Bhagwati*<\/span>, JJ., opined that a specific performance decree would involve an order on the appellants to carry out their obligations under the agreement and if the appellants failed to do so, the Court would in execution carry out these obligations through its own officers. However, this could not be done if the terms were vague. The Supreme Court opined that the respondents who received the specific performance decree in their favour might communicate their wishes to the court’s officer but that would certainly not be an execution of the work by mutual consultation between the parties. The vagueness and uncertainty of the terms of agreement would, therefore, not be cured by this mode of execution, and that is why the legislature enacted that such a contract could not be specifically enforced. Therefore, the Supreme Court opined that the agreements were vague and uncertain in their terms and were not capable of specific performance. Thus, the Supreme Court opined that the High Court erred in granting to the respondents the decree for specific performance, and accordingly set aside the decree passed by the High Court and restored the decree of the Trial Court.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

On 18-04-1942, the respondents entered into an agreement with the appellants, to take on lease the building of the Vijayanand Theatre at Dhulia together on certain terms and conditions recorded therein. It was also agreed that the appellants should repair the theatre in such a way that it would be suitable for a cinema, including electric fitting and to obtain necessary permission from the authorities. It was agreed that all the above building work should be executed by mutual consultation and the said building work should be completed within six months and during that period Defendants 1 to 4 should obtain the necessary lawful permission from the Executive Engineer, the District Magistrate, the Electrical Inspector and the municipality for starting the theatre and should defray all the required expenses.<\/p>\n

The agreement for rent was to take effect from the date on which the theatre was duly certified and was given into the respondent’s possession and his brother in favour of the appellants. However, due to non-availability of electricity because of the war conditions, the parties entered into supplementary agreement, which substantially reserved the appellants’ right to seek performance of original contract after availability of electricity. Subsequently, in 1946 the electricity company stated that it might be able to give electric connection in due course. Thus, the respondents asked the appellants to perform their part of the agreement. However, on failure in doing so, the respondents filed a suit for specific performance of the agreements before the Trial Court.<\/p>\n

The Trial Court negatived the respondents’ claim for specific performance but awarded the respondents, damages of Rs. 3000. Thus, the respondents filed an appeal to the High Court, and the High Court held that the appellants had committed a breach of the agreements by failing to carry out their obligations to get the electric connection in 1947 when it could have been given by the electric company, and the appellants had also committed a breach of the agreement by failing to hand over possession of the premises to the respondents. Accordingly, the High Court decreed the respondents’ claim for specific performance.<\/p>\n

Thus, the appellants filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court opined that a specific performance decree would involve an order on the appellants to carry out their obligations under the agreement and if the appellants failed to do so, the Court would in execution carry out these obligations through its own officers. However, this could not be done if the terms were vague and uncertain, and it would be even more difficult if the alterations and repairs had to be executed by mutual consultation between the parties. The Supreme Court opined that the respondents who received the specific performance decree in their favour might communicate their wishes to the court’s officer but that would certainly not be an execution of the work by mutual consultation between the parties. The Supreme Court opined that it would not be specific performance of the agreement, rather it would be the substitution of the new agreement between the parties. The vagueness and uncertainty of the terms of agreement would therefore not be cured by this mode of execution, and that is why the legislature enacted that such a contract could not be specifically enforced. Thus, the Supreme Court opined that the agreements were vague and uncertain in their terms and were not capable of specific performance.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court noted that the terms of agreement had very minute, numerous details and also imported the volition of the parties to the extent that the building work was to be executed by mutual consultation between the parties. Therefore, the agreements were such that the court could not enforce specific performance of their material terms and thus, the nature of these terms the agreements could certainly not be specifically enforced.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court opined that the Trial Court had rightly came to the conclusion that the respondents were not entitled to specific performance, however when the appeal was filed before the High Court, the respondents offered to the Court that they were prepared to take the premises on lease as existed and they themselves would carry out repairs and other works as might be necessary at their own expense. The Supreme Court opined that no such offer was made by the respondents, when the suit was heard by the Trial Court. Further, what repairs and works were necessary to be carried out was left to be determined by the respondents and what might be considered necessary by the respondents might not be considered so by the appellants. The appellants were certainly eliminated from the scene altogether in this offer which was made by the respondents to the High Court. The Supreme Court opined that the volition of the respondent was substituted for the mutual consultation between the parties and this offer certainly could not be said to be a fulfilment of the terms of the agreements.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court opined that it was no doubt that as per Section 63<\/a> of the Contract Act, 1872<\/a> (‘ICA’), the respondents were open to dispense with or remit wholly or in part the performance of the promise made by the appellants to them, but it was not open to the respondents to dispense with the performance of the promise which they in their turn had made to the appellants. The offer made by the respondents to the Court was unilateral and worked only in favour of the respondents, ignoring the appellants and their volition altogether. Thus, there was no question of the applicability of Section 63 of the ICA in the present case, as it applied where a promise was for the benefit of one party only.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court further noted that when the appeal came before the High Court, the electric company was not able to supply the electric energy even then and the only thing which the electric company stated was that it would supply the electric energy “in due course”. The Supreme Court opined that the expression “in due course” was again vague. There was no knowing that whether the generating set would be received and installed by the electric company within a measurable distance of time or at all. Further, the Supreme Court opined that it failed to understand what would happen to the specific performance decree granted by the High Court, if circumstances supervened which made it impossible for the electric company to receive and install the generating set as expected.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Supreme Court opined that the High Court erred in granting to the respondents the decree for specific performance, and accordingly set aside the decree passed by the High Court and restored the decree of the Trial Court.<\/p>\n

[Hiralal Motilal Shet v. Rameshwar Ballabram Bhatwal, (1952) 2 SCC 547<\/a>, decided on 03-02-1952<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Note: Specific Performance of Contract<\/p>\n

Specific performance is an equitable remedy in the law of contract, wherein if the contract is breached by one party, the other party has the option to file a suit for specific performance compelling him to perform his part of contract. Section 14<\/a> of the Specific Relief Act, 1963<\/a> provides the contracts, that are not specifically enforceable. As per the provision, the following contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely:— (a) where a party to the contract has obtained substituted performance of contract in accordance with section 20<\/a> of the Specific Relief Act, 1963<\/a>; (b) a contract, the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise; (c) a contract which is so dependent on the personal qualifications of the parties that the court cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms; and (d) a contract which is in its nature determinable.<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by- Justice N.H. Bhagwati<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Appellants:<\/span> C.K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India (J.B. Dadachanji, Advocate, with him);<\/p>\n

For the Respondents:<\/span> M.C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India and N.C Chatterjee, Senior Advocate (K.B. Asthana with M.G. Chitlay, Advocates, with them).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on specific performance of contract.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67520,"featured_media":313772,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,58675],"tags":[9292,58925,65258,32503,31855,5363,65257,65256],"class_list":["post-313762","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-scc-never-reported-judgments-supreme-court","tag-contract-act","tag-never-reported-judgment","tag-section-63-of-ica","tag-specific-performance","tag-specific-relief-act","tag-supreme-court","tag-uncertain-agreements","tag-vague-agreements"],"yoast_head":"\nVague and uncertain agreements are not capable of specific performance | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court opined that the High Court erred in granting to the respondents the decree for specific performance, and accordingly set aside the decree passed by the High Court.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgment| Vague and uncertain agreements in a contract are not capable of specific performance [(1952) 2 SCC 547]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court opined that the High Court erred in granting to the respondents the decree for specific performance, and accordingly set aside the decree passed by the High Court.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-02-11T05:30:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/nrj_1-5.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgment| Vague and uncertain agreements in a contract are not capable of specific performance [(1952) 2 SCC 547]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Vague and uncertain agreements are not capable of specific performance | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/nrj_1-4.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-02-11T05:30:58+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court opined that the High Court erred in granting to the respondents the decree for specific performance, and accordingly set aside the decree passed by the High Court.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/nrj_1-4.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/nrj_1-4.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"vague uncertain agreements not capable of specific performance\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Never Reported Judgment| Vague and uncertain agreements in a contract are not capable of specific performance [(1952) 2 SCC 547]\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\",\"name\":\"Arushi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arushi\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/arushi\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vague and uncertain agreements are not capable of specific performance | SCC Blog","description":"Supreme Court opined that the High Court erred in granting to the respondents the decree for specific performance, and accordingly set aside the decree passed by the High Court.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Never Reported Judgment| Vague and uncertain agreements in a contract are not capable of specific performance [(1952) 2 SCC 547]","og_description":"Supreme Court opined that the High Court erred in granting to the respondents the decree for specific performance, and accordingly set aside the decree passed by the High Court.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-02-11T05:30:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/nrj_1-5.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Arushi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Never Reported Judgment| Vague and uncertain agreements in a contract are not capable of specific performance [(1952) 2 SCC 547]","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arushi","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/","name":"Vague and uncertain agreements are not capable of specific performance | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/nrj_1-4.webp","datePublished":"2024-02-11T05:30:58+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76"},"description":"Supreme Court opined that the High Court erred in granting to the respondents the decree for specific performance, and accordingly set aside the decree passed by the High Court.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/nrj_1-4.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/nrj_1-4.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"vague uncertain agreements not capable of specific performance"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/11\/sc-vague-and-uncertain-agreements-are-not-capable-of-specific-performance-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Never Reported Judgment| Vague and uncertain agreements in a contract are not capable of specific performance [(1952) 2 SCC 547]"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76","name":"Arushi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arushi"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/arushi\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/nrj_1-4.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":298039,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/30\/supplier-cannot-treat-non-payment-of-goods-as-ground-for-non-delivery-of-balance-goods-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":313762,"position":0},"title":"Never Reported Judgment | When contract is not for delivery of goods in installments, supplier cannot treat non-payment of goods as ground for non-delivery of balance goods [1951 SCC 267]","author":"Simranjeet","date":"July 30, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1951 on breach of contract.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"breach of contract","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/breach-of-contract.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/breach-of-contract.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/breach-of-contract.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/breach-of-contract.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":318308,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/24\/sc-damages-for-non-delivery-of-goods-not-maintainable-in-absence-of-contract-of-sale-between-parties-scctimes\/","url_meta":{"origin":313762,"position":1},"title":"Never Reported Judgment| Damages for non-delivery of purchased goods not maintainable in absence of contract of sale between parties [(1953) 1 SCC 157]","author":"Arushi","date":"March 24, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on damages for non-delivery of goods.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"damages for non-delivery of goods in absence of contract of sale","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/damages-for-non-delivery-of-goods-in-absence-of-contract-of-sale.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/damages-for-non-delivery-of-goods-in-absence-of-contract-of-sale.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/damages-for-non-delivery-of-goods-in-absence-of-contract-of-sale.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/damages-for-non-delivery-of-goods-in-absence-of-contract-of-sale.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":340851,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/09\/proposal-with-several-parts-must-be-accepted-rejected-entirely-accepting-one-part-will-be-counter-offer-not-contract\/","url_meta":{"origin":313762,"position":2},"title":"NRJ Series| Proposal with several parts must be accepted\/rejected in its entirety; acceptance of one part will at best be counter-offer and not a contract [(1954) 2 SCC 728]","author":"Arushi","date":"February 9, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on what constitutes as a contract, dating back to the year 1954.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"contract counter-offer acceptance","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/contract-counter-offer-acceptance.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/contract-counter-offer-acceptance.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/contract-counter-offer-acceptance.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/contract-counter-offer-acceptance.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":319646,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/07\/sc-purchaser-is-not-willing-to-perform-his-part-of-contract-if-he-did-not-treat-contract-as-subsisting-scctimes\/","url_meta":{"origin":313762,"position":3},"title":"Never Reported Judgment| Purchaser cannot be said to be ready and willing to perform his part of contract, if he does not treat the contract as subsisting [(1953) 1 SCC 234]","author":"Arushi","date":"April 7, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on personal bars to relief in specific performance of contract.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"purchaser not ready and willing if did not treat contract as subsisting","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/purchaser-not-ready-and-willing-if-did-not-treat-contract-as-subsisting.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/purchaser-not-ready-and-willing-if-did-not-treat-contract-as-subsisting.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/purchaser-not-ready-and-willing-if-did-not-treat-contract-as-subsisting.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/purchaser-not-ready-and-willing-if-did-not-treat-contract-as-subsisting.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":306489,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":313762,"position":4},"title":"Never Reported Judgement| Vendor cannot urge his defective title as an answer in specific performance suit by purchaser [(1952) 2 SCC 124]","author":"Editor","date":"November 5, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on specific performance in imperfect title.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"vendor defective title specific performance","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/vendor-defective-title-specific-performance.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/vendor-defective-title-specific-performance.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/vendor-defective-title-specific-performance.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/vendor-defective-title-specific-performance.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":274371,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/24\/prospective-applicability-of-2018-amendment-of-specific-relief-act-1963-an-issue-that-requires-further-consideration\/","url_meta":{"origin":313762,"position":5},"title":"Prospective Applicability of 2018 Amendment of Specific Relief Act, 1963; An issue that Requires Further Consideration","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 24, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Kingshuk Banerjee\u2020 and Arnav Mohanty\u2020\u2020 Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 70","rel":"","context":"In "Experts Corner"","block_context":{"text":"Experts Corner","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-89-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-89-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-89-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-89-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-89-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/313762","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67520"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=313762"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/313762\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/313772"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=313762"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=313762"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=313762"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}