#oral agreement

The Calcutta High Court held that an oral agreement for land sale, evidenced by parties' conduct, establishes a prima facie case for specific performance warranting a temporary injunction. The court ruled the suit does not fall under the Commercial Courts Act, and a plea for alternative damages does not disentitle the plaintiff from injunctive relief.

West Bengal State Consumer Commission ruled that an oral agreement for flat sale is legally enforceable, directing a full refund of Rs. 19.75L with 9% interest and Rs. 1.3L compensation for service deficiency under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a plaint seeking specific performance of an oral agreement for land sale must clearly plead the essential terms - such as price, parties, and subject matter - to establish a cause of action. Vague or incomplete pleadings, even if supported by later evidence, are sufficient grounds for rejection at threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, placing new burden on plaintiffs to draft with precision from the outset.

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that oral tenancy agreements, when evidenced by rent receipts and used for commercial purposes, fall squarely within the definition of commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This removes the myth that only written contracts trigger commercial court jurisdiction, impacting landlords, tenants, and businesses operating without formal leases across India.

The Bombay High Court held that readiness and willingness to perform an oral sale agreement can be proven through contemporaneous conduct and documents, not merely by depositing the balance amount. This clarifies that equitable relief under the Specific Relief Act extends to parties who act in good faith, even without full payment, reshaping how courts assess performance readiness in property disputes.

The Chhattisgarh High Court denied specific performance of an oral land sale agreement, ruling that vague testimony, uncorroborated payment claims, and absence of written terms fatally undermine the certainty required under Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act. This reinforces that oral contracts in high-value property transactions demand concrete, contemporaneous evidence - not just witness accounts - to be enforceable, impacting buyers, developers, and litigants relying on informal deals.