Parliament Passes Specific Relief Amendment Bill Making Specific Performance of Contract Compulsorily Enforceable

Must Read

Explained: The Scope of Article 21 During the Era of COVID-19

“One’s right to self, their body, their health, and their livelihoods is inherent to living a meaningful human life, Human...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

The Debate Between IPR and Competition Law Explained

There are various market processes or structures that govern market scenario. For simplicity, this paper focuses on two mechanisms:...

The Competition Law Regime and Re-Tooling Patent Pools In India

The adversity to acquire licenses of various patented technologies can thwart the commercialization as well as the development of...

Solving Healthcare Issues Using Blockchain Technology

In troubled times that follow a pandemic, almost all nations are forced to take stock of the gaps present...

Follow us

On July 23, 2018, the Parliament passed the Specific Relief Amendment Bill, 2018 titled Specific Relief (Amendment) Bill, 2018. The Bill considerably strengthens the law on specific performance by making the provisions for relief more efficacious.

Specific Relief Amendment Bill

The amendments are in line with the UNDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and attempt to make India a business-savvy jurisdiction by improving its position on the enforceability of contracts. The key highlights of the Bill are discussed below:

Section 10 of the Specific Relief Amendment Bill substitutes the words “may, in the discussion of the court” with “shall be enforced by the court”. This amendment makes the relief for specific performance a statutory remedy instead of an equitable discretionary remedy.

The primacy given to the relief for damages over specific performances has been removed. The Specific Relief Amendment Bill has dispensed with the settled grounds that specific performance can only be granted when either the damage cannot be ascertained or when monetary compensation is not adequate.

Moving forward, the Courts no longer have the discretion and must grant specific performance unless expressly barred by the provisions stated in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“Act”) i.e. Sections 11(2), 14 and16.

Section 14 of the Specific Relief Amendment Bill empowers the Court to engage one or more experts to assist and report on issues arising out of a suit for specific performance. The opinions of such experts shall form a part of the suit record and parties may, subject to Court’s permission, examine the expert in open Court on any matter referred to him or mentioned in his report.

The practice of engaging experts has seen exponential growth in the institutional/commercial arbitration sector. The said growth is mainly attributable to the regulated and institutionalized manner in which experts are on-boarded to testify on important issues arising out of a conflict.

The Courts may have to direct the concerned government(s) to formulate rules specifying, modalities such as minimum qualifications/experience, making of declarations specifying the availability of an expert and conflict of interests, if any.

New Inserts in Specific Relief Amendment Bill

The newly inserted Sections 15(fa) and 19(ca) provide that an LLP which is created out of one LLP amalgamating with another can sue or be sued in a suit for a specific performance.

Specific Relief Amendment Bill

By way of this amendment, the Bill has introduced a new category of entities who are entitled to claim specific performance of contract i.e. amalgamated LLPs

Section 20 of the Bill entitles a party that is affected due to the non-performance of another party, to get the contract performed by a third party or its own agency.

This is subject to the affected party issuing a written notice, of not less than thirty (30) days, calling upon the party in breach to perform the contract within such time as specified in the notice. The party suffering the breach is entitled to recover the cost and the expenses for the substituted performance by the third party or through its own agency from the party committing the breach.

The proposed amendment is likely to deter the occurrence of the breach in a contract. Further, the notice period of 30 days may result in parties choosing to perform or renegotiate the contract thereby not only restoring relationships but also reducing litigation.

Section 20B of the Bill mandates that the State government(s) in consultation with the Chief Justice of the concerned High court to establish Special Civil Courts to try cases under this Act. Further, Section 20C stipulates a maximum period of twelve (12) months to dispose off suits filed under the Act. This can be further extended by a maximum period of six (6) months and that too after recording reasons for doing so.

The establishment of Special Civil Court would come as a much-needed respite to the existing civil courts that are already choked with pendency. As regards the timeline of twelve (12) months is concerned, the potential conflict with the timelines prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 may have to be clarified.

Section 20A of the Bill provides that no injunction shall be granted by a Court in matters relating to infrastructure projects (as specified in the schedule) where granting an injunction would cause an impediment to or delay in the completion of the project.

This amendment aims not only to improve the current investor sentiment but is also intended towards public interest. This crystallizes the perception that public works/ infrastructure projects inherently have an element of public interest affixed to them and ought not to be stayed at the instance of one party.

The amendment to Section 16(c) dispenses with the plaintiff’s requirement to make a specific averment reflecting his readiness and willingness to perform the contract. It would suffice if the averment in substance and spirit indicate a willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform its part of the contract.


Dehors its minor glitches that are subject to clarification, the amendments to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 have finally given some meaningful purport to the relief of specific performance, which was, for the longest time subject to the whims of the judicial discretion.

Apart from the President’s assent, what is also keenly awaited are certain important clarifications. Apart from those stated above, the date of applicability of the proposed amended law is unclear, i.e. whether it shall be applicable w.e.f the date on which the contract was signed, date of breach or the date on which proceedings are instituted. Be that as it may, the Bill is certainly poised to bolster contract enforcement and restore the confidence-deficit in commercial litigations as an effective mode of dispute resolution.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -