By a judgment delivered on 9 October 2018 in the case of Sushil Kumar Agarwal vs Meenakshi Sandhu and Ors. [2018 (13) SCALE 778], the Hon`ble Supreme Court, which relied on the provisions of section 14(3)(c) (before it was amended) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 („Act“), established principles relating to development agreements and their enforcement, and in particular decided that those provisions did not prevent developers from requesting specific application of the agreements; who grant them development rights against the owner of the land. On the other hand, the plaintiff obtained from the civil court of the city the finding of the ineffectiveness of the termination of the development contract. Subsequently, the complainant also amended the appeal which contained a prayer for the concrete implementation of the development agreement. Since that appeal had been dismissed by the Civil Municipal Court on the ground that there was no tangible evidence that possession of the premises had been handed over to the complainant, the applicant preferred to appeal to the Hon`ble High Court of Calcutta. That appeal was also dismissed by the Hon`ble High Court on the ground that the appeal within the meaning of Section 14(3)(c) of the Act could not be upheld. In appropriate circumstances, the General Court may award a specific benefit even before the contractual obligation in question has been breached, on the basis that the right of equity to pursue a particular benefit provides that the claimant has presented circumstances justifying the intervention of a court of equity instead of requiring the existence of a plea. In accordance with the agreement, the owners had approached the complainant to construct a building on the land, on the basis of the terms agreed between the parties. This Hon`ble Court relied on Ashok Kumar Jaiswal vs. Ashim Kumar Kar, a decision of the Supreme Court of Hon`ble Calcutta, to establish that the right to seek the execution of a development agreement is not explicitly excluded or by the necessary implication of the Specific Relief Act 1963, and that a broad interpretation should be made to allow for an appropriate remedy. . Questions and instructions; (f) Decree on the practical execution of the development contract of 19-1-1983 against the defendant within the meaning of Article 16 of that Article. Defendant to execute and register a deed of lease in favour of the applicant and/or his nominee or nominees within the meaning of Article 18 of the development contract of 19-1-1983 concerning the contracting authorities…;(i) Decree on Rs 80 Lakhs as damages, as referred to in paragraph 12 above, in addition to a decree relating to a given benefit;(j) alternative, an investigation, on the loss.
Subsequently, the respondent sent a letter to the complainant and objected to the execution of the agreement, which was protested by the respondent. Subsequently, the parties fulfilled and amended the conditions of the development agreement according to which (i) the respondent`s allocation would be 47% instead of 42% and (ii) the applicant`s allocation would be 53% instead of 58%. In this case, the Supreme Court was confronted with the question of concrete compliance with a development agreement. In the case, the General Court analysed the conditions referred to in Article 14(3)(c) of the Special Law on Protection, in order to determine whether, in the case, the developer had been prevented from bringing an action for the specific performance of a development contract between him and the owner of the land. . . .