NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports || Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC || SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation || SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job || NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights || NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation || Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation || Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute' || Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices || Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear

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 :