SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(SC) 147

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. HEGDE AND K.K. MATHEW, JJ.
Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. (In voluntary Liquidation), Appellant
Versus
Haridas Mundhra and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 488 of 1971, D/- 9-3-1972
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. V. Gupte, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. S. B. Mukherjee, B. N. Garg, K. K. Jain, D. N. Sinha, Mrs. Lina Seth, M/s. M. M. N. Pombra and H. K. Puri, Advocates, with him), for the Appellant, Mr. R. C. Dev, Sr. Advocate (Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, Miss. M. Bose, Miss. S. Swarup and Mr. P. C. Bharatari, Advocates, with him), (for No. 1), Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. Shanker Ghosh, D. N. Gupta, N. Khaitan, Miss Krishna Sen and Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocates, with him), (for No. 4): M/s. S. S. Khanduja, Promod Swarup and Miss Lalita Kohli, Advocates, (for Nos. 7 and 8) and M/s. Gobind Das and B. D. Sharma, Advocates, (for No. 10). For Respondents.

Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, B.D.SHARMA, B.N.GARG, B.P.SINGH, D.M.Sinha, D.N.GUPTA, GOVIND DAS, H.K.PURI, K.K.JAIN, KRISHNA SEN, LALITA KOHLI, LINA SETH, M.BEST, M.M.N.POMBRA, N.KHAITAN, P.C.BHARTARI, PRAMOD SVARUP, R.C.DEN, S.B.MOOKERJEE, S.S.Khanduja, S.SWAROOP, S.V.Gupta, SHANKAR GOPAL PAGIRE, SOMNATH CHATTERJI

Headnote:Effect of the repeal of the specific relief act, 1877 - Specific relief Act, 1963 is not exhaustive Act - Decree for specific performance of contract for sale - The mere right to take advantage of the provisions of an act is not an accrued right - Rescission of contracts – repeal of the act about a week after the repeal of the 1877 act – maintainable of the application under the repealed act - Rescission of a decree for specific performance for the sale or lease of immoveable property – provisions do not apply for moveables

       – as the preamble would indicate, it is an Act ‘to define and amend the law relating to certain kinds of specific relief.’ It does not purport to law down the law relating to specific relief in all its ramifications, as observed in Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. v. Haridas Mundhra, AIR 1972 SC 1826. Although a matter on which the At defines the law it might generally be exhaustive, the Act as a whole cannot be considered as exhaustive of the whole branch of the law of specific performance.

       – as held in the case of Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. v. Haridas Mundhra, AIR 1972 SC 1826, although a matter on which the Act defines the law it might generally be exhaustive, the Act as a whole cannot be considered as exhaustive of the whole branch of the law of specific performance. Also held, that, as the Court retained control over the matter despite the decree, it was open to the court, when it was alleged that the party moved against that positively refused to complete the contract to entertain the application and order rescission of the decree if the allegation was proved.

       – in the case of Hunderford Investment Trust Ltd. v. Haridas Mundhra, AIR 1972 SC 1826, it was held that the appellant had no accrued right on the date of the repealed of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 to file an application under Section 35 of the said Act, which was saved under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. (Section 35 of the repealed Act is corresponding to Section 27 of the 1963 Act).

       – the right to rescind the decree under Section 35 (of the repealed Act) can arise only if the purchaser makes default in paying the purchase money ordered to be paid under the decree. Before the lapse of a reasonable time from the date of the decree, the appellant could have no right to have the decree rescinded on the ground of default of the purchaser. To put it in other word, the right of the appellant to have the decree rescinded was dependent on the default of the purchaser in paying the purchase money. Such a default as in the case of Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. v. Haridas Mundhra, AIR 1972 SC 1826 had not occurred when the Specific Relief Act, 1877 was repealed, as a reasonable time for the performance of the obligation under the decree had not elapsed from the date of the decree. The more important reason why there was no default in this case was that the execution of the decree in the suit was stayed by orders of the trial and appellate court. Hence, held that the appellant had no accrued right on the date of the repeal to file an application under Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (Corresponding to Section 27(1) of the 1963 Act).

       – the provisions of this section provide only for an application for rescission of a decree for specific performance for the sale or lease of immoveable property, no application to rescind a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell moveables would lie under this section, as held in Hunderford Investment Trust Ltd. v. Haridas Mundhra, AIR 1972 SC 1826.

Judgment

MATHEW, J.:- This is an appeal with certificate from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, setting aside the order of a single judge of the Court allowing an application filed by the appellant for rescission of an agreement for sale dated October 30, 1956, as also the decree dated February 25, 1964, for specific performance of the agreement and for other alternative reliefs specified in the application.

2. Hungerford Investment Trust Limited (in voluntary liquidation) hereinafter called Hungerford was the owner of 100 per cent shares in Turner Morrison & Co., hereinafter called "Turner Morrison . John Geoffrey Turner and Nigel Frederic Turner, both since deceased, were the owners of the 100 per cent shares of Hungerford. The entire share capital to Turner Morrison consisted of 4,500 fully paid up ordinary shares of Rs. 1,000/- each.

3. By exchange of letters it was agreed that Haridas Mundhra, hereinafter called Mundhra; would purchase from Hundgerford, 49 per cent shares of Turner Morrison. The agreement also provided for an option to Mundhra of purchase from Hungerford, the balance of 51 per cent shares to Turner Morrison within 5 years. A formal agreement dated October 30, 1956, was executed between Hungerford, John Geoffrey Turner and Migel Frederic Turner on the one hand, and British India Corporation and Haridas Mundhra on the other, embodying the terms of the agreement. Pursuant to this agreement., 49 per cent of the shares in Turnover Morrison was sold and transferred to Mundhra and his nominee British India Corporation. Thereafter, Mundhra exercised his option to purchase the 51 per cent shares. But the shares were not sold or transferred to him. So on April 19, 1961, Mundhra filed a suit against Hungerford, Turner Morison and others for specific performance of the agreement to sell the 51 per cent shares (Suit No. 600 of 1961.) As Mundhra did not want to proceed against Turner Morrison, the suit was dismissed as against that company and a decree was passed on February 25, 1964. The decree provided that the agreement relating to the sale of 51 per cent ordinary shares of Turner Morrison ought to be specifically performed and directed Hungerford to deliver to Mundhra, the 51per cent shares against payment of the consideration of Rupees 86,60,000/-. An injunction was also granted restraining Hungerford and the other defendants in the suit from voting except in accordance with the instruction of Mundhra and restraining Hungerford from selling the shares to any person other than Mundhra. The decree, except as regards the injunction, was stayed by the trial judge, on the application of the appellant, for 3 weeks.

4. Hungerford, along with some other defendants, filed an appeal from the decree on March 18, 1964 (Appeal No. 69 of 1964) and obtained a stay of execution of the decree except in so far as it related to the injunction, until the disposal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed on August 26, 1964, for the appellant, leaving Mundhra free to perform his part of the obligation under the decree.

5. By a Master s summons dated August 30, 1965. Hungerford made an application praying that Mundhra may be directed to implement the decree by paying Rs. 86,60,000/-, the un-paid purchase money, within such time as the Court may direct; that Hungerford be directed to execute proper transfer deeds in respect of the 51 per cent shares within such time as the Court may direct: and that in default of payment of Rs. 86,60,000/- by Mundhra within the period to be fixed, the Court may order the rescission of the agreement and the decree. The application was dismissed on September 28, 1965, by Justice Ray, holding that the application was one for execution of the decree in Suit No. 600 of 1961 and must be in a tabular form and "that any imposition to time limit would be to engraft something on the decree which does not exist in the decree". Hungerford preferred an appeal against the said order (appeal No.














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top