Justice Aravind Kumar Emphasizes Role Of 2018 Specific Relief Act Amendment In Strengthening Contract Enforcement In India
The Karnataka Judicial Academy, as part of its Silver Jubilee Lecture Series, organised the eighth lecture at its auditorium in Bengaluru. Justice Aravind Kumar, Judge, Supreme Court of India, delivered an insightful address on the topic: “Mandatory Nature of Specific Performance Post 2018 Amendment & Substituted Performance as a Remedy U/s 20 of The Specific Relief Act.” Justice...
The Karnataka Judicial Academy, as part of its Silver Jubilee Lecture Series, organised the eighth lecture at its auditorium in Bengaluru. Justice Aravind Kumar, Judge, Supreme Court of India, delivered an insightful address on the topic: “Mandatory Nature of Specific Performance Post 2018 Amendment & Substituted Performance as a Remedy U/s 20 of The Specific Relief Act.”
Justice Kumar highlighted the importance of the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act in promoting the ease of doing business in India. He remarked that the legislative changes have strengthened contractual enforcement and enhanced commercial certainty, which are two key factors for a robust business environment.
He observed that the discretionary nature of specific performance under the old Section 10 has now been replaced with a mandatory regime, thereby eliminating the defence that monetary compensation alone would suffice. He said that the “The amendment philosophy is clear that the presence of a compensation clause does not automatically absolve a breaching party from liability.
Justice Aravind Kumar elaborated on the concept of substituted performance, calling it a progressive remedy introduced by the amendment. He outlined its critical components:
- The right of the aggrieved party to get the contract fulfilled through a third party;
- A 30-day notice requirement before invoking substituted performance;
- The ability to recover costs and expenses incurred during substituted performance;
- The option to elect the remedy of substituted performance or specific performance;
- The availability of damages in addition to substituted performance.
- He emphasized that even if a party chooses substituted performance, the remedy for compensation remains open.
Justice Kumar advised judicial officers to exercise caution when granting injunctions in matters involving infrastructure, construction, and supply of goods, where project delays can have wide economic implications.
He referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Katta Sujata Reddy v. M/s Siddamma Shetty Infra Projects Pvt Ltd, where the Court held that the 2018 amendment is not retrospective. He noted that while transition issues may arise, the principles must evolve through case-specific interpretation. He said that the Law is crystallised common sense and it should evolve on the facts of the case. Further he said that the amendment marks a paradigm shift in Indian contract law, from judicial discretion to legal certainty. Equity is not dead after amendment, it is relevant and its contours are now guided by Section 14, which requires parties to prove readiness and willingness in enforcing performance.
Justice Kumar concluded with a message that the 2018 amendment ushers in a new era in Indian contract law. It ensures that the aggrieved party is not left high and dry. A contract, once made, must be honoured and the law ensures its enforcement. He urged legal practitioners to approach these disputes as matters of contract enforcement rather than compensation negotiation.
Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge, High Court of Karnataka and President of the KJA, also spoke on the occasion. Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav, Judge, High Court of Karnataka and Governor, KJA, delivered the welcome speech and the program concluded with Vote of thanks, proposed by Justice S R Krishna Kumar, Judge, High Court of Karnataka and Governor, KJA.