- Home
- /
- Supreme court
- /
- Supreme Court Recalls Judgment...
Supreme Court Recalls Judgment Which Held 2018 Amendment To Specific Relief Act Prospective
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
8 Nov 2024 6:21 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Friday (November 8) recalled its 2022 judgment which held that the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963, will apply only prospectively to transactions effected after the date when the amendment came into force (01.10.2018).The Court recalled the judgment in the exercise of its review jurisdiction. The judgment was reviewed on factual points.The reveiw...
The Supreme Court on Friday (November 8) recalled its 2022 judgment which held that the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963, will apply only prospectively to transactions effected after the date when the amendment came into force (01.10.2018).
The Court recalled the judgment in the exercise of its review jurisdiction. The judgment was reviewed on factual points.
The reveiw bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra held that the original judgment erred in not granting the discretionary remedy of specific performance of the sale agreement.
"This Court held that the 2008 amendment to Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act does not apply retrospectively and decided the matter based on Section 10 before the amendment. Section 10, before the amendment, conferred courts with the discretion to provide a decree for specific performance. In exercise of review jurisdiction, we must not disturb a finding unless there is an error apparent on the face of record. Even assuming that the grant of relief of specific performance continued to be discretionary to a suit instituted before the date of the amendment, we are of the opinion that this Court committed a grave error in its analysis of whether the Court ought to use its discretionary power in this matter," the review judgment held.
"On an application of the facts to the principles in Sections 10 and 16 of the Specific Relief Act, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for this Court to exercise its discretion to direct specific performance," the Court held.
The original judgment was rendered by a three-judge bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli in Katta Sujatha Reddy vs Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712.
On August 31, 2023, the review petition filed against the judgment was listed in chambers before a bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Hima Kohli.
While CJI Chandrachud allowed the oral hearing of the review petition, Justice Hima Kohli (who was part of the original judgment) disagreed with the CJI. Justice Kohli held that there was no case for review and dismissed it. "With respectful regards, I regret my inability to concur with the order passed by the Hon. Chief Justice of India for listing the Review Petitions for open court hearing and notice returnable," Justice Kohli observed.
Justice Narasimha recused from the matter.
In view of the split, the matter was then placed before Justice Manoj Misra.
In the order passed on September 26 (uploaded on October 4), Justice Misra agreed with the view of CJI Chandrachud and held that an open hearing of the review petition was necessary. "Upon consideration of the materials on record, I am also of the view that delay in filing the review petition be condoned and the oral hearing of the review petition be allowed. Therefore, the delay in filing the review petition is condoned. Prayer for oral hearing of the review petition in open Court is allowed," Justice Misra observed.
Accordingly, notice was issued, returnable on October 14.
The 2018 amendment, among other things, made it mandatory for Courts to grant the relief of specific performance of contract, unless the case fell within the specified exceptions. Prior to 2018, specific performance was a discretionary remedy.
In the 2022 judgment, the Supreme Court took the view that the 2018 amendment was not merely procedural, as it created substantive rights, and hence, it cannot be given retrospective effect.
Case : M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt Ltd v. Katta Sujatha Reddy and Others | Review Petition (Civil) No 1565 of 2022
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 870
Click here to read the judgment
