Specific Performance of Contracts After the 2018 Amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963

This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.

Overview

For decades, a party suing to enforce a contract in India faced an uncomfortable reality: even a proven breach did not guarantee that the court would order the other side to perform the contract. Specific performance was treated as an equitable and discretionary remedy, available only when the court thought it just to grant it, with monetary damages as the default. The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act 18 of 2018), in force from 1 October 2018, changed this position fundamentally for contracts entered into after that date. This article explains the post-amendment framework under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 — why specific performance is now closer to a rule than an exception, what “substituted performance” under Section 20 means, and what defences remain open to a defendant.

The Pre-2018 Position

Before the amendment, Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provided that specific performance of a contract “may, in the discretion of the court,” be enforced — principally where there existed no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused by non-performance, or where monetary compensation would not afford adequate relief. A separate provision, the old Section 20, titled “Discretion as to decreeing specific performance,” gave courts wide latitude to refuse the remedy even where the plaintiff was otherwise entitled to it — for instance, where the contract gave the plaintiff an unfair advantage, or where performance would cause the defendant hardship not foreseen at the time of contracting. In practice, this meant many plaintiffs who proved a clear breach nonetheless recovered only damages.

The 2018 Amendment — From Discretion to Rule

The amendment rewrote Section 10 so that specific performance of a contract “shall be enforced” by the court, subject only to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 11, Section 14, and Section 16. This is a change from “may enforce” to “shall enforce,” and it removed the general “adequacy of damages” threshold that had governed the remedy for over half a century. The old discretionary Section 20 — with its open-ended hardship and unfair-advantage grounds — was substituted entirely by a new Section 20 dealing with a different concept: substituted performance (discussed below). The result is that a plaintiff who is not caught by one of the specific statutory bars in Sections 14 and 16 is now, as a matter of statutory language, entitled to a decree of specific performance rather than dependent on the court’s residual discretion.

Section 14 — Contracts That Still Cannot Be Specifically Enforced

The amendment narrowed the exceptions considerably. Under the amended Section 14, only four categories of contracts cannot be specifically enforced:

A contract where the party has already obtained substituted performance under Section 20.
A contract whose performance involves a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise.
A contract that is so dependent on the personal qualifications of the parties that the court cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms.
A contract that is, by its nature, determinable.

Notably, the earlier bar based on damages being an “adequate remedy” has been removed as a general ground of refusal — it survives only within these four narrower categories.

Section 14A — Expert Assistance

The amendment also inserted Section 14A, empowering the court, where it considers a dispute to involve questions of a technical, trade, or scientific nature, to engage experts to assist in appreciating such evidence, on terms as to costs the court may direct. This is aimed chiefly at complex commercial and infrastructure contracts.

Section 16 — Personal Bars to Relief

Section 16 continues to bar specific performance in favour of a person who has obtained substituted performance under Section 20, who has become incapable of performing or has acted in fraud of the contract, or who fails to prove that they have performed, or have always been ready and willing to perform, the essential terms of the contract on their part. The 2018 amendment made one significant procedural change here: it removed the earlier requirement that readiness and willingness be specifically averred in the pleadings; a plaintiff must still prove readiness and willingness, but is no longer barred merely for an omission in the pleading itself.

Substituted Performance Under Section 20

The centrepiece of the amendment is the new Section 20, titled “Substituted performance of contract.” Where a contract is broken, the aggrieved party may, instead of suing for specific performance, get the contract performed by a third party or through their own agency, and recover the costs and expenses actually incurred from the party in breach. Two conditions govern this route:

The aggrieved party must first give the party in breach a written notice of not less than thirty days, calling upon them to perform the contract within the time specified in the notice.
If the aggrieved party elects substituted performance, they forfeit the right to thereafter claim specific performance of the contract against the party in breach — the two remedies are mutually exclusive once substituted performance is actually availed of.

Substituted performance gives a non-breaching party a faster, self-help route to completing the transaction (for example, engaging another contractor after due notice) without having to wait out a specific-performance suit, while still preserving a claim to recover the extra cost from the defaulting party.

Infrastructure Contracts and Time-Bound Disposal — Sections 20A to 20C

The amendment added three further provisions — two directed at infrastructure project contracts, and one of general application:

Section 20A bars courts from granting an injunction in a suit relating to a contract for an infrastructure project (as specified in the Schedule to the Act) where the grant of an injunction would cause impediment or delay to the progress or completion of the project.
Section 20B enables state governments, in consultation with the concerned High Court, to designate one or more civil courts as special courts to try suits relating to infrastructure project contracts.
Section 20C is not confined to infrastructure disputes. It provides that a suit filed under the provisions of the Act shall be disposed of within twelve months from the date of service of summons on the defendant, extendable by a further period of up to six months for reasons recorded in writing.

Defences Available to a Defendant

Because specific performance is now the presumptive rule, a defendant’s available defences are correspondingly important. In substance, they fall into three groups:

General contract-law defences under Section 9. A defendant may plead any defence available under the law of contract — for instance, that no concluded contract exists, or that the contract is void or voidable for fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, coercion, mistake, or want of consideration.
The four categories under Section 14. A defendant may show that the contract falls within one of the narrow categories that cannot be specifically enforced — most commonly, that it requires continuous supervision the court cannot undertake, or turns on the personal skill or qualifications of a party.
The personal bars under Section 16. A defendant may show that the plaintiff has not proved (or cannot prove) that they performed, or were always ready and willing to perform, their own essential obligations under the contract; or that the plaintiff has already elected and obtained substituted performance under Section 20, which forecloses a further claim for specific performance; or that the plaintiff has acted in fraud of the contract or in variance with its terms.

A defendant may also raise limitation: a suit for specific performance of a contract must ordinarily be filed within three years, the period prescribed by Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, running from the date fixed for performance, or, where no such date is fixed, from when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.

Key Case Law — Prospective, Not Retrospective

The Supreme Court has clarified an important boundary on how far the 2018 amendment reaches. In Katta Sujatha Reddy v. M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India, decided 25 August 2022, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1079), the Court held that the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act is prospective in operation and does not apply to transactions or suits arising out of contracts entered into before 1 October 2018. The Court rejected the argument that the amendment was merely procedural, holding that converting specific performance from a discretionary to a substantially mandatory remedy is a substantive change in the law, and that a substantive amendment is not presumed to operate retrospectively absent express words or necessary intendment to that effect. Practically, this means the pre-2018 discretionary framework, including the old Section 20 hardship considerations, continues to govern contracts formed before the amendment came into force, even where the suit itself is filed later.

Practical Points

The amended framework applies only to contracts entered into on or after 1 October 2018; the earlier discretionary regime continues to apply to older contracts.
A party contemplating substituted performance must first serve a written notice of at least thirty days and should recognise that exercising this option forfeits the right to sue for specific performance thereafter.
Because damages-adequacy is no longer a general defence, drafting and performing contractual obligations carefully has become more important — courts are more likely to hold parties to their bargains rather than let them buy their way out through damages.
A plaintiff must still be able to prove readiness and willingness to perform, even though it need no longer be separately pleaded.
Suits concerning infrastructure project contracts are subject to injunction restrictions and time-bound disposal, and may be assigned to a special court where the state government has notified one.

Takeaway

The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 marked a deliberate legislative shift away from treating specific performance as an exceptional, discretionary remedy and towards treating it as the ordinary consequence of a proven breach, subject only to the narrow exclusions in Sections 14 and 16 and the self-help alternative of substituted performance under Section 20. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Katta Sujatha Reddy confirms that this shift operates prospectively, so the applicable law continues to depend on when the underlying contract was made. Anyone assessing a contract dispute should first identify which regime — pre- or post-October 2018 — governs the transaction before evaluating the available relief and defences.

Useful Resources

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.