Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

Specific Performance: Endorsement was signed by a third party who lacked the legal authority

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

In the case of Gourave Gupta vs. Laxmi Rohra & Anr. (and a connected appeal), the Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of two suits for specific performance regarding commercial shops in Jawahar Nagar. Justice Mini Pushkarna ruled that the appellants failed to prove a valid extension of the contract deadline, as a handwritten endorsement was signed by a third party (the co-owner’s son) who lacked the legal authority or Power of Attorney to bind the owner. Furthermore, the Court found that time was of the essence due to the respondents’ urgent financial liabilities and that the appellants failed to demonstrate their “readiness and willingness” to pay the balance consideration, as they lacked the necessary funds in their bank accounts and offered no documentary proof of financial capacity.

  1. Factual Background

The appellants (Gourave Gupta and M/S La Mode Fashions Pvt. Ltd.) entered into separate Agreements to Sell dated August 18, 2005, with the respondents to purchase two interconnected shops for a total consideration of Rs. 1.68 crores (Rs. 84 lakhs each). The appellants paid an advance of Rs. 9,00,000/- each (Total Rs. 18 lakhs), with the balance due by December 31, 2005. When the balance was not paid, the respondents cancelled the agreements and forfeited the advance money.

  1. The Dispute Over Extension of Time

The appellants claimed that the deadline for completion was mutually extended to February 28, 2006, citing a handwritten endorsement on the back of the agreements signed by Respondent No. 2 and Kamal Rohra (the son of Respondent No. 1). The respondents contended that this endorsement was unauthorized, that no such extension was granted, and that the signatures were obtained under the guise of acknowledging a receipt for photocopies.

  1. Authority to Modify Contracts

The Court delved into whether Kamal Rohra could validly sign an extension on behalf of his mother (Respondent No. 1). The Court held that:

  • Lack of Authorization: There was no Power of Attorney or written authority produced to show he was authorized to act on her behalf regarding the sale of the property.
  • Co-owner Consensus: For property with multiple owners, a consensus ad idem (meeting of minds) among all co-owners is essential for any modification of material terms.
  • Legal Precedent: Citing Supreme Court rulings, the Court emphasized that an agent’s authority to bind a principal to a contract for sale must be clear and unambiguous.
  1. Time as the Essence of the Contract

While time is generally not considered the essence in contracts for immovable property, the Court noted that it can be inferred from the express terms and surrounding circumstances. In this case:

  • The respondents had specifically incorporated clauses regarding strict timelines because they needed the funds to repay bank loans and release mortgages on other family properties.
  • Consequently, the failure of the appellants to pay the balance within the stipulated time justified the cancellation of the agreements.
  1. Failure to Prove “Readiness and Willingness”

Under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, a plaintiff must show continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. The Court found the appellants deficient because:

  • Financial Incapacity: Cross-examinations revealed the appellants did not have the requisite funds (even half the required amount) in their bank accounts at the relevant time.
  • Lack of Documentary Evidence: The appellants made “bald statements” about having cash or arranging loans from friends but produced no bank statements, account books, or pay orders to substantiate their capacity to pay.
  • Continuous Requirement: Readiness refers to financial capacity, while willingness refers to conduct and intention; the appellants failed on both counts.
  1. Final Conclusion

The High Court affirmed the Trial Court’s findings that the purported extension was invalid and that the appellants were never genuinely ready to complete the transaction. Finding no merit in the appeals, the Court dismissed the petitions, thereby upholding the dismissal of the suits for specific performance and permanent injunction.

2026 DHC 5400

Gourave Gupta vs. Laxmi Rohra & Anr.(D.O.J. 06.07.2026)

2026 DHC 5400 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

NDPS Bail Granted: No legally admissible evidence other than a disclosure statement

July 10, 2026 No Comments

In Dawit HayelomBerhe vs. Narcotics Control Bureau, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to an Ethiopian national accused of drug trafficking under the NDPS Act. Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that there was currently no legally admissible evidence against the applicant other than a disclosure statement and the recovery of USD 3,500/-. Relying on the principle of parity, the Court noted that two co-accused with similar roles had already been released on bail. Although bail was granted, the Court directed that due to the applicant’s expired visa, he must be handed over to the Foreign Regional Registration Office (FRRO) immediately upon the acceptance of his bail bond.

  • Case Background and Allegations: The applicant sought regular bail regarding Crime No. VIII/74/DZU/2022 involving offences under Sections 8, 21, 23, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) alleged that 4.98 kg of cocaine was seized from a co-accused, Dipali, who claimed in her confessional statement that she received the contraband from the applicant and another individual at a hotel in Mumbai.
  • Investigative Disclosures: Following their summons, the applicant and another accused allegedly disclosed that they were sent to India from Ethiopia with trolley bags containing cocaine. This information led to a further search and the recovery of 2.055 kg of cocaine from another co-accused, Kelemuwa, at a different hotel.
  • Arguments for the Applicant:
    • Counsel argued that the case against the applicant rested solely on an inadmissible disclosure statement and the recovery of USD 3,500/-, with no further evidence to justify detention.
    • The applicant sought parity, pointing out that two other co-accused with identical alleged roles had already been granted bail.
  • Position of the NCB: The Senior Standing Counsel for the NCB admitted that similar co-accused had been granted bail but argued that granting bail in such instances could hamper efforts to curb the drug menace in the country.
  • Court’s Findings: The Court determined that since there was no legally admissible evidence currently presented and parity was established, the applicant was entitled to relief. The judge explicitly noted the lack of substantial evidence beyond the disclosure statement.
  • Final Order and Conditions: The bail application was allowed, subject to the following:
    • A personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the same amount.
    • Because the applicant’s visa has expired, the Court directed the Jail Superintendent to hand him over to the FRRO once the bail bond is accepted.
    • A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Jail Superintendent for communication to the accused.

2026 DHC 5460

Dawit HayelomBerhe vs. Narcotics Control Bureau (D.O.J. 08.07.2026)

2026 DHC 5460 click here to view full text of judgment

Next Story

Provident Fund: Time granted to deposit for revival of appeal

July 10, 2026 No Comments

In Mahagun India Pvt Limited vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the Delhi High Court granted a petitioner the opportunity to revive its statutory appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), which had previously been dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit condition. Justice Mini Pushkarna allowed the petitioner four weeks to deposit 40% of the assessed amount (approximately ₹2.51 crores), noting that the petitioner expressed readiness to comply with the financial requirement originally set by the CGIT. The Court directed that the appeal would stand revived immediately upon the deposit being made.

1. Procedural History and Nature of the Petition

The petitioner, Mahagun India Pvt Limited, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated April 29, 2026, passed by the Presiding Officer of the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Delhi-1. This order had dismissed the petitioner’s statutory appeal (Appeal No. D-1/23/2024) because the petitioner had failed to comply with an earlier pre-deposit order dated December 1, 2025.

2. The Original Pre-Deposit Order

In the December 2025 order, the CGIT considered a request for a waiver of the pre-deposit. The Tribunal observed that since the appeal was at the initial stage and the beneficiaries were unidentifiable, a total waiver of the deposit was not justified. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to deposit 40% of the total assessed amount of ₹6,27,44,486/- via a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in favor of the “Registrar CGIT”.

3. Submissions of the Parties

  • Petitioner: Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was now ready to deposit the required 40%, which calculated to approximately ₹2,50,97,794/-, and requested a period of time to fulfill this obligation.
  • Respondent: The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner expressed no objection to granting the petitioner time to make the deposit. However, the respondent’s counsel suggested that the amount should be deposited directly with the respondent instead of the Registrar CGIT.

4. Court’s Analysis and Directions

The Court noted that the original CGIT order specifically directed the deposit to be made with the Registrar CGIT. Accordingly, the Court issued the following directions:

  • Extension of Time: The petitioner is granted four weeks from the date of the judgment to deposit the sum of ₹2,50,97,794/-.
  • Revival of Appeal: Upon deposit of the aforementioned amount, the petitioner’s appeal before the CGIT shall stand revived.
  • Release of Funds: The respondent is granted the liberty to move an application before the CGIT for the release of the deposited amount, which the Presiding Officer will then consider in accordance with the law.

5. Final Decision

The High Court disposed of the writ petition and all pending applications with these directions on July 6, 2026.

2026 DHC 5447

Mahagun India Pvt Limited vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (D.O.J. 07.07.2026)

2026 DHC 5447 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Labour Law: Payment of interest on pension grant – Liberty to make formal representations to respondent

July 10, 2026 No Comments

In Shobha Devi vs. Shailendra Kumar Singh (and several connected contempt petitions), the Delhi High Court disposed of a series of petitions regarding the payment of interest on pension grants for construction workers. Justice Mini Pushkarna noted that while the principal pension amounts had already been released to the petitioners following a 2023 judgment (Dulari Devi case), the respondent disputed the automatic entitlement to interest in every case. Rather than adjudicating the substantive right to interest within its contempt jurisdiction, the Court granted the petitioners liberty to make formal representations to the respondent, who was directed to pass a speaking order on the matter within six weeks.

1. Background and Context

The petitioners filed these contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with the directions issued in a 2023 judgment titled Dulari Devi Versus Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board & Anr. regarding the grant of pension.

2. Status of Payments

During the proceedings, the petitioners’ counsel informed the Court that the principal pension amounts had already been paid by the respondent. However, the current grievance was narrowed down specifically to the non-release of the interest component on those pension amounts.

3. The Respondent’s Objections

The respondent filed a reply disputing the payment of interest on several legal grounds:

  • Interpretation of Precedent: The respondent argued that the Dulari Devi judgment established a general legal principle regarding pension eligibility but did not mandate independent interest payments in every subsequent case.
  • Nature of Relief: It was contended that the original writ petitions did not contain express directions for interest, and therefore, compliance with the operative directions was completed upon the release of the principal benefits.
  • Jurisdictional Limits: The respondent asserted that contempt jurisdiction is limited to verifying deliberate disobedience and cannot be converted into execution proceedings for additional reliefs that were not specifically granted in the original order.

4. Court’s Directions and Disposal

In response to the respondent’s legal objections, the petitioners sought liberty to approach the respondent through administrative channels. Consequently, the Court issued the following directions:

  • Representation: The petitioners are permitted to make formal representations to the respondent regarding their claim for interest within four weeks.
  • Timebound Decision: Upon receiving these representations, the respondent must decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in accordance with the law.
  • Communication: The respondent is required to pass a speaking order and communicate the decision to the petitioners’ counsel via email.
  • Further Remedies: If the petitioners remain aggrieved by the respondent’s eventual order, the Court granted them the liberty to seek further legal remedies as available.

5. Final Conclusion

Finding that the substantive dispute over interest required a separate administrative or legal determination, the High Court disposed of the contempt petitions with the aforementioned directions to ensure an expedited resolution.

2026 DHC 5446

Shobha Devi vs. Shailendra Kumar Singh (D.O.J. 07.07.2026)

2026 DHC 5446 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Refusal to Quash FIR: Forcible Abortion – Serious social offence.

July 10, 2026 No Comments

In Dinesh Chauhan & Ors. vs. State NCT of Delhi and Anr., the Delhi High Court refused to quash an FIR involving allegations of matrimonial cruelty and sexual misconduct despite a settlement between the parties. Justice Girish Kathpalia ruled that the inclusion of charges related to forcible abortion and violations of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PNDT) Act transformed the case from a private dispute into a serious social offence. The Court held that heinous crimes like female foeticide affect the interest of justice and society at large, and therefore cannot be quashed merely because the individuals involved have reached a compromise.

1. Nature of the Petition

The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking the quashing of FIR No. 378/2019 registered at Police Station Sarita Vihar. The request was based on the grounds that the de facto complainant (Respondent No. 2) had compromised her disputes with the petitioners.

2. Background and Charges

The FIR was initially registered for offences under Sections 323/509/34 of the IPC. However, several serious charges were subsequently added, including:

  • Section 313 IPC: Causing miscarriage without woman’s consent (forcible abortion).
  • Section 377 IPC: Unnatural offences.
  • Section 498A IPC: Matrimonial cruelty.
  • PNDT Act: Offences related to illegal sex determination.

3. Opposition by the State

The State strongly objected to the quashing of the FIR. The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) pointed out that in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, the complainant had levelled allegations of serious sexual misconduct and revealed that she was subjected to a forcible abortion and illegal sex selection procedures.

4. Petitioners’ Contentions

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the petition should be allowed because the complainant had agreed to the quash and the marriage between the complainant and Petitioner No. 1 had already been dissolved.

5. Court’s Findings and Reasoning

  • Social vs. Private Offences: The Court distinguished between “personal violations” between two individuals and “social offences”. It held that allegations of sex determination and female foeticide fall into the category of heinous social crimes.
  • Interest of Justice: The Court emphasized that when offences are of such a grave nature, the mere fact that the parties have settled does not warrant quashing the case. The interest of justice requires the prosecution to continue for crimes that impact society’s moral fabric.
  • Status of Investigation: The Court noted that a chargesheet regarding these serious allegations was soon to be filed.

6. Final Conclusion

Finding that the case was not a fit one for the exercise of its discretionary powers to quash an FIR, the Court dismissed the petition and the accompanying application.

2026 DHC 5427

Dinesh Chauhan & Ors. vs. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.(D.O.J. 07.07.2026)

2026 DHC 5427 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins