Agreement In Specific Relief


“14. The amendment of the Specific Relief Act 1963 by Law 18 of 2018 replaces the expression “who does not have to reject and prove” with the expression “who cannot prove” and the expression “must prove” with the expression “must prove”, but the position on all material aspects then remains the same, That the concrete performance of a contract cannot be imposed in favour of the person who does not demonstrate that he has already fulfilled the conditions essential of the contract which it must fulfil or which it has always been willing and willing to fulfil, with the exception of conditions the performance of which the other party has prevented or cancelled. It is common for a contract to be terminated and this fact encourages legal action to be taken in respect of the provision of services. In such cases, the failure to request the annulment of the termination would be on the basis of death, since in the absence of a reasonable exemption from the annulment of the termination, it would be presumed that the applicant has accepted it and cannot subsequently bring legal proceedings for the performance of a contract considered to have been terminated by his conduct. All of the above principles would apply to the same force to a party seeking a specific benefit in arbitration proceedings. 6. Who are the parties necessary to take legal action for a given service? « 38. The agreement contained two clauses governing termination, one providing for the termination of certain events and the other that allowed each party to terminate the contract with a period of 30 days to the other party without giving grounds for termination. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. terminated the agreement under the first clause. An arbitral tribunal found that the denunciation constituted a breach and decided that Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. was required to reinstate distribution and pay compensation. The Supreme Court held that the agreement was revocable and therefore determinable under the law.

The Supreme Court also ruled that, as soon as the arbitral tribunal found that the termination for alleged violation was unlawful, the only remedy that could be granted was compensation for the 30-day notice, the agreement being revocable without justification. [1] For an analysis of the prospective or retroactive nature of the Specific Relief Act 2018, see corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2018/09/specific-relief-amendment-act-2018-prospective-retrospective/. You can find an analysis of the corresponding changes in corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2019/01/contract-law-enforcement-india/. In addition, under section 50 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the High Court of England and Wales is free to award damages to an applicant instead of a specified benefit (or injunction). . . .