Home | Legal Advice | Case Law | J. P. Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao 2011

J. P. Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao 2011

By Shivendra Pratap Singh
Estimated Reading Time:

It is settled law that even in the absence of specific plea by the opposite party, it is the mandate of the statute that the plaintiff has to comply with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The crux of the Supreme Court’s judgment has been given below.

J.P.Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao

It is settled law that even in the absence of specific plea by the opposite party, it is the mandate of the statute that the plaintiff has to comply with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and when there is non-compliance with this statutory mandate, the court is not bound to grant specific performance and is left with no other alternative but to dismiss the suit. It is also clear that readiness to perform must be established throughout the relevant points of time. “Readiness and willingness” to perform the part of the contract has to be determined/ascertained from the conduct of the parties.

J.P.Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao (2011) 1 SCC 429
~

Privacy Protection

Under privacy protection, we don’t publish your questions on the website. We keep your question confidential and protected by password.

shivendra pratap singh advocate

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Advocate

Practising lawyer at the High Court Lucknow. Expertise in Criminal, Civil, Matrimonial, Writ, Service matters, Property, Revenue and RERA related issues.

Kanoonirai has been advising in legal issues since October 2014. You can consult a lawyer through online media, telephonic consultation and video conferencing.

Contact

mail[at]kanoonirai.com
+91-91400-4[nine][six]54