SITAC PVT LTD Vs. STATESMAN LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff's right to the remedy of specific performance as envisaged under the Act of 1963 is dependant upon the basic fact of the contract being concluded The statute provides that the contract in question must be fair in all parts free from any misrepresentation or fraud and without any undue advantage to the plaintiff not unconscionable and capable of being executed through a decree of Court.

(2.) In a suit for specific performance the plaintiff is required under the law to show that there exists a concluded contract capable of being specifically performed, whereas the defense may be raised that in fact there was never any contract concluded.

(3.) Surrounding circumstances permit the defense to raise a defense successfully that an agreement relied upon by the plaintiff is not an agreement but a mere proposal and there was in fact no acceptance A proposal divers from an agreement whereas a proposal is an act of on a party the agreement is that of both. There must be a proper acceptance of the proposal and the acceptance in that regard must always be absolute, unconditional and unequivocal in nature. There must be clear consensus of mind of parties end nothing should be left to be done in the future, though, however, working out of the details of the agreement may be left outstanding till a future date. The factum of a document being executed does not by itself prove that, there was in fact a concluded agreement, if, however, it can be shown that a material particular has been left outstanding,