Kerala HC: Applications under the Muslim Women’s Divorce Act Have a 3-Year Limitation Period || Supreme Court: Property Transferred Before Filing a Suit Cannot be Attached under Order 38 Rule 5 || Supreme Court: No Review or Appeal is Maintainable Against an Order Appointing an Arbitrator || SC: Terminated Contract is Not a Corporate Debtor’s Asset and a Moratorium Cannot Revive it || SC: Cheque Dishonour Complaints Must be Filed at the Payee’s Home Branch under S.142(2)(A) || Supreme Court: Bail Cannot be Granted Solely on Parity; Accused’s Specific Role Must be Assessed || Kerala HC Upholds Life Terms For Five, Acquits Two in Renjith Johnson Murder, Says TIP Not Needed || Kerala HC Orders Emergency Electric Fencing at Tribal School to Address Rising Wildlife Conflict || Madras HC: Arbitrator Can’t Pierce Corporate Veil to Bind Non-Signatory and Partly Sets Aside Award || Calcutta HC: Post-Award Claim For Municipal Tax Reimbursement is Not Maintainable under Section 9

Committee recommends modifications to Specific Relief Act 1963- (Ministry of Law and Justice) (20 Jun 2016)

MANU/PIBU/0496/2016

Contract

An Expert Committee set up to bring changes in specific performance trends submitted its report proposing amendments to the Specific Relief Act 1963.

The Committee suggests a change in approach, to make specific performance the rile, with damages being the alternative. It also proposes a more defined framework, which reduces courts’ discretion when granting performance and injunctive reliefs.

Being inherent to public interest, the Committee calls for recognising public contracts as a ‘distinct class’. It insists that such be managed through a monitoring system, one that limits interference by courts.

Tags : SPECIFIC RELIEF DAMAGES PUBLIC CONTRACTS

Share :