Supreme Court: Action Under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act Is an Action “In Personam”

Must Read

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife...

Telangana HC Grants Two Days to Convey the Decision of Appropriate Notification and Counselling to the Higher Secondary Department

Excerpt In Telangana Republican Party Trp vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed the...

Telangana HC: Applications Have to Be Made Through Online Web Portal “Dharani” for Mutation of Names

Excerpt In P. Manohar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court...

Follow us

The Bench consisted of Justice R F Nariman, Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Indira Banerjee held that action under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is directed to specific persons alone. Hence, all others concerned with such property are not to be taken into account as being an action “in rem.”

Brief facts of the case

The Appellant signed an agreement with the Respondent No. 1 to develop a plot of land. The agreement did not contain an arbitration clause. Respondent No. 1 then delegated the execution of the said agreement to Respondent No 2. This next agreement for execution contained an arbitration clause.

A case of fraud was involved leading to the filing of separate suits. A prayer for the setting aside of some agreements was made.

Arbitration was sought, and the lower courts directed the parties for arbitration. The said reference is a question in the present appeal.

Appellant’s Arguments

Section 8 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act, 1996”) requires the Court to determine if the subject matter of the dispute is arbitrable or not. When it comes to serious allegations of fraud, an arbitrator’s jurisdiction ceases to exist. 

Also, the original agreement between Deccan (Respondent no. 1) and Ashray (Respondent No. 2) did not contain an arbitration clause.

The proceedings under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 are proceedings “in-rem”. And the present case is one for the cancellation of three “written instruments”. Thus, it would fall within one of the exceptions in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 532.

Respondent’s Arguments

The fraud exception would only apply only when the agreement was not executed. The present case is not of such nature. Also, no ramifications affect the public nor such ramifications are criminal, in the present case. These requirements are precedent to the application of the exception.

Under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the Court’s jurisdiction, is discretionary. For setting aside a written instrument, the proceeding has to be considered to be one “in personam.”

Court’s View

If the subject matter of an agreement between parties falls within Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, or involves fraud in the performance of the contract, being a civil wrong, the subject matter of such agreement would be arbitrable without question.

Further, because a particular transaction may have criminal overtones as well, does not mean that its subject matter becomes non-arbitrable. The present suit is also one that is inter parties with no “public overtones”.

It held that an action for rescission of a contract and delivering up of that contract to be cancelled is an action “in personam.” This can be the subject matter of a suit for specific performance, making it a valid subject matter of the arbitration. 

The Bench opined that judgment under Section 31 does not bind all persons claiming an interest in the property inconsistent with the judgment, even though pronounced in their absence. The Bench stated that by the virtue of its registration, a private document between parties does not become a document of any higher status.

The cancellation of the instrument under Section 31 is between the parties to the action and their privies and not against all persons generally. This is because the instrument that is cancelled is to be delivered to the plaintiff in the cancellation suit.

Court’s Decision

Actions instituted under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act are “in personam” and are hence arbitrable. The Court allowed Respondent No. 3 to be referred to arbitration.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

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

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta High Court on 22nd January...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by the Petitioners (wife) challenging the...

Calcutta High Court: Deceased’s Wife Has the Sole Right Over His Preserved Sperm; Father Doesn’t Have Any Fundamental Right Over Son’s Progeny Without the...

Case: Asok Kumar Chatterjee vs. The Union of India & Ors. The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition by the Petitioner (father) on 19th...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife to transfer the case from...

Telangana HC Grants Two Days to Convey the Decision of Appropriate Notification and Counselling to the Higher Secondary Department

Excerpt In Telangana Republican Party Trp vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed the Higher Education Department for passing...

Telangana HC: Applications Have to Be Made Through Online Web Portal “Dharani” for Mutation of Names

Excerpt In P. Manohar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed that one has to...

Indonesian Spa Therapist Approaches Supreme Court Regarding Illegal Detention Followed by Raid at the Spa

An Indonesian spa therapist has moved to Supreme Court, whilst challenging an HC order which provided relief to the police inspector who was involved in the illegal detention of the spa therapist in a woman’s home which was followed by a police raid at the spa.

Questions of Forgery, Tampering Not Capable of Summary Adjudication Under Article 226 in Delhi High Court’s Jee Marks Case

Questions of fraud, forgery, and tampering require elaborate evidence as per the ruling of the Delhi High Court making it incapable of summary adjudication...

Supreme Court: Urgent and Immediate Reforms Needed in the Legal Education Due To Mushrooming of Law Schools

The Supreme Court, on Saturday, said that there is an urgent need for reforming the legal education in the country as its quality is being affected due to the ‘mushrooming’ of Law Colleges.

Delhi High Court Ruled Disclosure of Interest in Information Sought Under Rti Act Necessary to Establish Bonafides of Applicant

The Delhi HC opined that disclosure of the interest of information is necessary for the information sought under the RTI Act for establishing bonafide...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -