Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2022 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 2 - SC - Indian LawsSuit for specific performance of a collaboration agreement - termination of Collaboration Agreement - prayer for declaration of perpetual injunction - whether the Appellant is entitled for damages for the period between 24.08.2005 and 31.12.2009? - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The relevance of 24.08.2005 is that the Supreme Court disposed of the SLP on that date vacating the interim order granted in favour of the Appellant. Since there was an interim order operating in favor of the Appellant, damages are sought only from 24.08.2005 till 31.12.2009. The Appellant admits that no relief for damages or compensation was claimed in the suit. Admittedly, such a relief was not sought for either before the Division Bench or before this Court. No steps were taken by the Appellant to amend the appeal even after the date of expiry of the Collaboration Agreement, i.e., 31.12.2009. Whether even if a relief for damages has not been specifically sought for, this Court can still award damages to the Appellant? - HELD THAT:- In JAGDISH SINGH VERSUS NATTHU SINGH [1991 (11) TMI 246 - SUPREME COURT], the Respondents’ suit for specific performance of an agreement for conveyance of certain properties was dismissed by the Civil Court and the judgment of the Civil Court was upheld in appeal. As the High Court reversed the findings of the First Appellate Court, the defendant filed an appeal before this Court. The contention of the Appellant in that case was that the contract itself became incapable of specific performance as a proceeding for compulsory acquisition of suit properties was initiated during the pendency of the second appeal. It was not clear as to whether compensation in lieu of specific performance was sought by the plaintiff in the suit. However, on a finding that there is no difficulty in assessing the quantum of compensation for the subject property which was ascertainable by determination of market value, this Court permitted amendment of relief to do complete justice. The scope of Section 21 (4) and (5) was examined by this Court in SHAMSU SUMARA BEEVI VERSUS G. ALEX AND ANR. [2004 (8) TMI 694 - SUPREME COURT]. This Court referred to the Law Commission of India’s recommendation that in no case the compensation should be decreed, unless it is claimed by a proper pleading. However, the Law Commission was of the opinion that it should be open to the plaintiff to seek an amendment to the plaint, at any stage of the proceedings in order to introduce a prayer for compensation, whether in lieu or in addition to specific performance. In the said case no claim for compensation for breach of agreement of sale was claimed either in addition to or in substitution of the performance of the agreement. Admittedly, there was no amendment to the plaint asking for compensation either in addition or in substitution of the performance of an agreement of sale - thus, in the present case, the Appellant is not entitled to claim damages for the period between 24.08.2005 and 31.12.2009. The request of the Appellant for grant of damages cannot be accepted - Appeal dismissed.
|