#Equitable Remedies

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that in suits for specific performance, a plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform must be demonstrated not just at filing, but continuously from the date of contract execution through to the final decree. This sets a strict evidentiary standard for buyers seeking equitable relief, especially in property disputes where delays or inconsistent conduct can derail recovery.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that a non-agriculturist in actual, continuous possession under a pre-1995 agreement to sell cannot be dispossessed by self-help, and the original owner cannot seek injunction merely on grounds of transferee status. This affirms equitable possession as a shield against eviction, even where statutory restrictions on land transfer exist.

The Supreme Court ruled that a person can qualify as a deemed member under Sections 397-398 of the Companies Act, 1956, even without formal registration, if their financial contribution and the company’s conduct demonstrate a proprietary interest. This expands access to equitable remedies for investors and stakeholders whose rights are ignored through technical non-registration.

Bombay HC Nagpur Bench rules that a plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform a sale agreement is established by demonstrating funds availability, filing an affidavit, and issuing timely notices-even if the plaintiff purchased adjacent land at a lower price. The ruling reinforces that equitable relief under the Specific Relief Act hinges on substantive compliance, not minor price discrepancies.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a decree for specific performance cannot be granted unless the plaintiff pleads and proves readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The judgment underscores that courts must strictly enforce this requirement, impacting property and contract disputes where equitable remedies are sought.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that specific performance under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act cannot be granted if the vendor lacks transferable interest in the property at the time of the agreement, even if the buyer demonstrates readiness and willingness. Prior family settlements divesting ownership are binding, and buyers cannot challenge them if they were parties to related litigation.

Bombay High Court holds that illegal structures may not be demolished pending appeal if appellant deposits monthly sums, balancing equity and procedural delay. Key precedent for municipal enforcement cases.

Bombay High Court holds that interim stay against demolition of structure may be granted subject to monthly deposit of Rs.15,000 from 2011, balancing equity and municipal authority.