Specific Relief Act, 1963. Amendment of Section 20 with effect from 1:10:2018, though a ‘substitution’, is prospective in nature. Amendment does NOT apply to pending suits and appeals. Karnataka High Court.

M. Suresh vs Mahadevamma and others. Regular First Appeal 1560/2011 decided on 23 October 2020.

Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/347178/1/RFA1560-11-23-10-2020.pdf

Relevant Paragraphs: 20. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (‘Act’ for short) has been amended by the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 by Act No.18 of 2018, whereby Section 20 of the Act has been substituted inter alia doing away with the wider discretion of the Courts to grant specific performance introducing substituted performance of contract. In terms of the amended Act, the  concept of the jurisdiction to decree specific performance, which was discretionary, is no more available to the cases seeking relief for the breach of contracts etc., The old Section 20 of the Act has been substituted by the new amended Section 20 by Act No.18 of 2018 with effect from 01.10.2018 vide SO  4888(E)  dated  19.09.2018. 

22.The effect of the phrase ‘substitution’ has been subjected to judicial scrutiny in catena of judgments  of  the  Hon’ble  Apex  Court  and  this  Court. The same is collated to analyze the effect of the Amendment Act 18 of 2018 by way of substitution with effect from 01.10.2018, in particular to decide whether the amended Act is applicable to the pending matters.

23, 24. 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31 Judgments in Shamrao V. Parulekar  vs.  District  Magistrate, Thana, Bombay AIR 1952 SC 324, C. Gupta Vs. Glaxo-Smithkline Pharamaceuticals Limited (2007) 7 SCC 171, Shyam  Sunder  and  others  vs.  Ram Kumar   and   another (2001) 8 SCC 24, Govardhan M vs. State of Karnataka and Others (2013) 1 Kant LJ 437, Adhunik Steels Ltd., vs. Orissa ManganeseandMinerals(P)Ltd (2007) 7 SCC 125, Ferrodous Estates (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. P. Gopirathnam(dead)and others Civil Appeal No.13516/2015 (D.D. 12.10.2020), Girdhar Das Anandji and another vs. Jivaraj Madhavji Patel and others 1970 SCC Online Patna 10, Moulvi Hossain Mian vs. Raj Kumar Haldar AIR 1943 Calcutta 417, State of Punjab vs. Mohar Singh (1955) 1 SCR 893 referred to.

33. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that ordinarily, the effect of amendment by ‘substitution’  is  that,  the  substituted  provision  stands repealed and the amended provision is substituted in the place of earlier provision from the date of inception of the enactment, but it is not absolutely applicable in all circumstances. If the amendment Act expressly specifies that the substituted provision shall come into force from a particular date subsequent to the date of amendment/the date the amendment come into force, the said amendment is prospective in nature notwithstanding such amendment is by way of ‘substitution’.   The   intention   of   the   legislature   being clear, no retrospective effect could be given from the date of inception of the statute. There may not be any cavil on this legal proposition relating  to  substantial law. It is well settled that the interpretation  of provisions must depend on the text and context. The  real intention of the legislature has to be gathered from the text and context. The amendment Act contemplates that  the  said  amendment  by  way  of  ‘substitution’  would come into force on such day the Central  Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of the Act, 1st October 2018 is the date appointed for the amended provisions to come into effect.

35. Accordingly, we are of the view that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 would apply to the case on hand. As discussed earlier, the right or privilege accrued to the defendant/s under the unamended Act is a substantive right. Indisputably, such rights/privileges vested with the defendants at the time of breach of contract alleged, while filing the suit. Appeal is continuation of original suit. Thus, in our considered opinion, amendment to Section 20 being prospective in nature enforceable with effect from 01.10.2018, the same is not applicable to the pending proceedings governed and continued under the unamended provisions.

Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.

Published by rajdakshalegal

Senior Advocate, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru

Leave a comment