In K Narendra v Riviera Apartments (1999), the Supreme Court refused specific performance even where the conditions were met, because
ASpecific performance had been granted twice already
BThe plaintiff was a foreigner
CEquitable considerations and balance of convenience disfavoured specific performance — the discretion the court enjoyed pre-2018 under the old Section 20 included considerations of hardship and public interest
DThe defendant offered higher damages
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: C. Equitable considerations and balance of convenience disfavoured specific performance — the discretion the court enjoyed pre-2018 under the old Section 20 included considerations of hardship and public interest
K Narendra illustrates the pre-2018 wide discretion. Hardship, change of circumstances, and balance of convenience could defeat an otherwise valid prayer. Post the 2018 Amendment, this judicial freedom has narrowed considerably.
Related questions
The interface between Section 6 SRA (recovery of possession on the basis of possession) anWhich of the following is the BEST illustration of a contract that is 'determinable in nat'Substituted performance' under Section 20 SRA (post-2018) operatesThe 'ready and willing' requirement under Section 16(c) SRA must be pleaded and provedA 'mandatory injunction' under Section 39 SRAThe principle that 'equity treats as done that which ought to have been done' is reflectedUnder Section 53A of the TRANSFER OF PROPERTY Act 1882 (read with SRA principles), the docSection 20A SRA (post-2018) creates a SPECIAL regime for