NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

No Room for Dual Property Values in Specific Performance Cases: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal ruling, the Delhi High Court has issued an order emphasizing the clarity and uniformity required in determining property values in specific performance cases. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Justice Vibhu Bakhru, pertains to a suit for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 22.12.1970, involving a property measuring 5373 sq. Yds. In Civil Lines, Delhi.

The High Court’s verdict, which serves as a legal precedent, revolves around the central issue of fixing the market value of the said property as of 03.12.2012, as directed by the Supreme Court. The judgment categorically rejects the notion of having two separate property values, one at ₹130 crores and another at ₹75 crores, and underscores the need for a single, well-determined market value.

Justice Bakhru’s observations highlight the Court’s commitment to upholding the integrity of specific performance cases and ensuring that parties involved adhere to the decrees set forth by the Supreme Court. He states, “The approach of putting in place two separate sale considerations for the suit property...is wholly alien to the scope of determination of the market value of the suit property...Clearly, there cannot be two market values of the same property for specific performance of the agreement to sell.”

The judgment further underscores that while property values may have some subjectivity, it is entirely within the Court’s purview to determine a property’s value based on the evidence and material presented during proceedings. “It is well settled that the price agreeable by a willing buyer and a willing seller would, in normal circumstances, be accepted as the value of a property,” notes the Court.

Furthermore, the judgment takes issue with the notion that property prices have declined since 2012, as there was no concrete evidence to support this claim. The Court emphasizes the importance of considering all relevant factors when determining property values.

Delhi High Court’s ruling sets a clear precedent, emphasizing the need for a single, well-established property value in specific performance cases, thus ensuring fairness and transparency in such legal proceedings.

Date of Decision: 05.12.2023

NARENDER JAIN & ANR Versus ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS

Latest Legal News