The Supreme Court has held that Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act cannot prevail over the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act once a suit is instituted, rendering subsequent transfers subject to the final decree.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that a buyer failing to meet contractual obligations cannot claim a refund, upholding a Rs 20 lakh forfeiture in a property dispute. The court clarified the distinction between “earnest money” and “advance,” concluding the seller’s actions were justified due to the buyer’s default and lack of a refund request.
Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant praised the 2018 amendments to the Specific Relief Act, saying they strengthen India’s appeal as an investment hub by enhancing contract enforceability, especially in infrastructure. At the launch of Sarkar Specific Relief Act, Justice KV Viswanathan and Advocate Siddharth Sethi emphasized the Act’s adaptation to modern legal needs, while author Sudipto Sarkar highlighted Section 14A’s unique inquisitorial aspect.
Today, On 17th September, The Supreme Court requested clarification from the Muslim side in the Shahi Idgah mosque dispute regarding the filing of an appeal in the High Court. The legal battle involves a land dispute claimed by the Hindu community. The court aims to ensure a proper judicial process. The next hearing is scheduled for November 4.
The Supreme Court’s Law Clerks’ Moot Court Competition 2024 aimed to enhance advocacy skills of law clerks. It featured fictional scenarios focusing on contract law and constitutional issues. Justice PS Narasimha and senior advocate Rebecca John presided over the finals, with a team of Sayan Bhattacharya, Varun Dhond, and Ankita Gupta emerging as winners. The competition reflects the court’s commitment to legal education and professional growth.
