Empty Letter of 18.03.2002, the original owner sent a letter to the complainant and refused to implement the said development agreement. The complainant responded to this letter on 4.04.2002 with protest and refusal. In addition, the applicant asked the respondent to give her the power to obtain sanction for CMC`s urban planning plans. (ii) the applicant has a vital interest in the performance of the contract and the interest is so high that compensation in funds for non-compliance with the contract does not constitute an adequate discharge; and (d) a contract whose performance involves the performance of an uninterrupted obligation that the court cannot control. This hon`ble Apex Court decision eliminated the anomaly that persists in the interpretation of Section 14(3)c of the Specific Relief Act of 1963. He reiterated the right of developers to file a lawsuit for the specific implementation of an agreement. The special benefit is a fair remedy in contract law whereby a court makes an order requiring a party to perform a particular act, for example. B for the full execution of the contract. It is generally available in the sale of land rights, but otherwise it is not widely available if the damage is an appropriate alternative. A specific service is almost never available for human services contracts, although benefits can also be provided by the threat of legal action. This is due to the fact that the developer is the plaintiff and the lawsuit is against the owner, strictly enforced, clause (iii) would require that the defendant received possession under the agreement. Therefore, if, in such a situation, the developer sues for concrete benefit against an owner in possession of the land under a legitimate property, it cannot be ruled out that the defendant acquired the land by way of agreement. In addition, prior to the granting of the remedy, the commercial court must consider a defined benefit, to what extent the damage suffered by the promoter was caused and whether there is sufficient financial compensation to compensate for the losses incurred by the alleged violation by the owner.

It is apparent from the facts of this case that the applicant`s alleged damages can be quantified. As a result, the applicant did not meet the condition of section 14, paragraph 3, point c) of the Specific Relief Act of 1963. In addition, the three conditions for the granting, by this decision, of a specific implementation of a construction contract are well defined. The dispute agreement is attributed to the fact that the original owner approached the complainant to build a building on the aforementioned land.