The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 - Applicability To Pending Suits

The Parliament has enacted The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Amendment Act'), thereby making substantive changes to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Amendment Act was published in the Gazette of India, on 01.08.2018, for general information. As per Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act, it was to come into force on such date as the Central Government was to appoint in the official Gazette. Thereafter, the Central Government, vide Notification in the Official Gazette dt. 19.09.2018, appointed the date of 01.10.2018 as the date on which the provisions of Amendment Act, shall come into force. Thus, the provisions of the Amendment Act came into force on 01.10.2018. The Amendment Act had been enacted since on account of tremendous economic development, extensive reforms which had been carried out in various related statutory provisions towards greater enforcement of contracts and settlement of disputes in a speedy manner, were not truly reflected in the existing provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It was felt that the provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963 were not in tune with the rapid economic growth happening in the country. Three most essential aspects of the Amendment Act is relating to substitution of existing Section 10, 14 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 with substituted provisions. A question which is bound to arise is as to whether the substituted provisions under Sections 10, 14 and 20 would govern the suits / original proceedings, that were filed prior to 01.10.2018 and were pending as on the said date? The primary answer to the aforesaid question probably lies in the Amendment Act itself. A perusal of the Amendment Act shows that the present is not a case of amendment of the said provisions. However, the legislature has 'substituted' the existing provisions under Section 10, 14 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, with new provisions, albeit some parts of the substituted provisions may have remained the same as the original provisions. The legislature has intentionally used the word 'substituted' under the Amendment Act. The same connotes that the earlier provisions stand substituted by the new provisions. In KoteswarVittal Kamath vs. K. RangappaBaliga& Co. (1969) 1 SCC 255, a three-judgesBench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India elaborated that the process of substitution consisted of two steps (i) The old rule (or statutory provision) is made to cease to exist; and (ii) The new Rule (or statutory provision) is brought into existence in it's place. Another three-judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana& Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 1 had clearly created a distinction between 'Substitution' and 'supersession' or a mere repeal of the existing provisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision. In Government of India & Ors. Vs. Indian Tobacco Association (2005) 7 SCC 396, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon the definition of the word 'substitute' in Collins English Dictionary, to mean "to serve or cause to serve in place of another person or thing"; "to replace (an atom or group in a molecule) with (another atom or group)"; or "a person or thing that serves in place of another, such as a player in a game who takes the place of an injured colleague". In Gottumukkala Venkata Krishamraju Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.2018 (11) Scale 9, the question relating to effect of 'substitution' of a statutory provision as to the prospective or retrospective operation of the substituted provision came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that wherever the word 'substitute' or 'substitution' is used by the legislature, it has the effect of deleting the old provision and making new provision operative, as well as the two steps involved in the process of substitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India conclusively held that the Rule is that when a subsequent Act amends an earlier one in such a way so as to incorporate itself, or a part of itself, into the earlier, then the earlier Act must thereafter be read and construed as if the altered words had been written into the earlier Act with pen and ink and the old words scored out so that thereafter there is no need to refer to the amending Act at all. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that unless it is found that the legislature intended to give prospective operation to the substituted provision, the aforesaid position will prevail. Applying the aforesaid principles to the Amendment Act would show that the legislature has intentionally used the word 'substituted', while deleting the existing Section 10, 14 and 20 and...

The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 - Applicability To Pending Suits

Ankit Jain

Tags