✦ Supreme Court of India

SMT. KATTA SUJATHA REDDY & Anr. v. SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD & Ors.

Civil Appeal No. 5822 of 2022N V RAMANA, KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI59 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

The appeal is allowed on the above terms and the parties are

Judgment

14.

This Court is of the firm opinion that the contract was breached due to the conduct of the plaintiff/purchaser, who were not willing to perform the contract after entering into a time sensitive agreement. In any case, it is an admitted fact that plaintiff had paid only part consideration. Though there is a forfeiture clause in the agreement, this Court with a view of rendering complete justice between the parties, deems it appropriate to direct the vendors/appellants to repay the said amount with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date such payment was made by the purchaser to the vendors, till the entire amount is paid back. We further direct the vendors to pay the entire amount to the credit of the suit account within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. [Para 79][449-E-G]

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is allowed on the above terms and the parties are

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Limitation Act, 1963; Specific Relief Act — ss. 10, 12, 16(c); Specific Relief Act, 1963 — ss. 12, 16; Indian Contract Act, 1872 — s. 55; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 9.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Supreme Court of India or eCourts case status (search case no. Civil Appeal No. 5822 of 2022). ← Search more judgments