Bombay Garage Ahmedabad Limited & Ors. Vs J P Iscon Private Ltd. & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
An Injunction Suit First, Specific Performance Later? Supreme Court Says the Omitted Relief Cannot Be Revived by Withdrawal
Can a purchaser who sues only to prevent the sale of a property later withdraw that suit and file a fresh one for specific performance? The Supreme Court has held that the answer depends on whether the right to seek specific performance had already arisen when the first suit was filed. If it had, the purchaser cannot reserve that relief merely by seeking liberty at the time of withdrawal.
The dispute concerned an alleged oral agreement to purchase company-owned property. The purchaser claimed that negotiations had resulted in an agreed price of ₹20.50 crore, that cash advances had been paid, and that a cheque for ₹5 crore had been handed over. When the proposed sellers allegedly refused to complete the sale, the purchaser filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against alienation and changes to the property. That suit was withdrawn, and a fresh suit seeking specific performance followed. The Trial Court decreed the fresh suit, and the High Court upheld the decree.
The Supreme Court examined two separate questions: Was the second suit barred because specific performance was omitted from the first? And had a concluded oral contract been proved at all? It answered both questions against the purchaser.
