Court case(2023) 1 SCC 355

By agreements of 1997 the appellants agreed to sell agricultural land to the respondent company, which paid a large part of the price and was to pay the balance within a fixed period. The balance was not paid in time; years later the company sued for specific performance. The trial court refused the decree and ordered a refund; the High Court reversed and decreed specific performance. The vendors appealed, and the question arose whether the amended s. 10, under which specific performance 'shall' be enforced, governed the suit.

The Supreme Court held that the 2018 Amendment Act is prospective. By replacing the court's discretion with a mandatory duty it alters substantive rights and liabilities, and there is nothing in it to show an intention to apply it to transactions before 1 October 2018; the earlier, discretionary regime therefore governed. Applying that regime, the Court found that the purchaser had not paid the balance within the time stipulated and had not shown continuous readiness and willingness, so specific performance was refused and the refund ordered by the trial court restored.