Specific Performance Of A Development Agreement

That court considered whether Article 14(3)(c)(iii) constituted an obstacle to a development agreement, given that an interest in the immovable property may have arisen in favour of the developer. If the developer is the plaintiff and the remedy is against the owner, clause (iii) would require the defendant to have acquired possession in accordance with the agreement. In this case, where the developer is not in possession of a remedy for a specified benefit against the owner and the owner is in possession of the land by virtue of a legitimate title, the defendant (i.e. the owner) has come into possession of the land through the contract. This would lead to an unusual situation where the condition of section 14 (3) (c) (iii) would not be met in the event of a developer`s appeal. The application of the literal interpretative rule in Article 14(3)(c)(iii) would lead to an aberration and would be incompatible with the intention of the law. (para. 23) In addition, before awarding compensation for a given service, Hon`ble Court must analyse the extent of the alleged damage or the damage suffered by the promoter and whether financial compensation is sufficient to compensate for the losses suffered by the alleged owner. It is apparent from the facts of the present case that the damage suffered by the applicant may be quantified. Consequently, the applicant did not fulfil the condition set out in section 14(3)(c)(ii) of the Specific Relief Act 1963. It would appear that, in the event that a development contract is concluded under which the developer is not only authorised to construct the building, but will also receive counterparties/cash flows from it and that a mandate is therefore executed in favour of the developer, in particular to obtain authorisations, sell units and obtain considerations, the same shall apply to the provisions of section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, In 1872, irrevocable in its nature and thus becomes, in its nature, even if there are no provisions of section 14 (3) (c) of the Act, a contract for which an aggrieved developer may claim a certain performance. This hon`ble Apex Court ruling eliminated the anomaly that existed permanently in the interpretation of section 14(3)(c) of the Specific Relief Act 1963. It confirmed the right of developers to take legal action for the specific performance of a creative agreement.

(iii) an agreement in which the owner or a person holding other rights in immovable property gives another person rights for the realization of development. In view of the above, the contracting authority must return part of the built area to the owner. The contracting authority has the right to take care of the balance of the built area. In some situations, a company or other similar association is created and the country is transferred or leased to the company or association; (d) a contract the performance of which involves the performance of an ongoing obligation which the General Court cannot review. The Delhi Supreme Court has ruled that specific compliance with a development agreement cannot be granted if its basic conditions have not been specified and the parties have not yet agreed on this point. To understand the case, we can take into account the conditions set out in Section 14 (3) (c) of the Act, namely that the Tribunal may enforce a specific contract for the construction of a building or the performance of other work on the land provided: . 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.

. . .