Skip to content
Home » Substituted Performance of Contract

Substituted Performance of Contract

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – Substituted performance of contract.

1(1) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), and, except as otherwise agreed upon by the parties, where the contract is broken due to non-performance of promise by any party, the party who suffers by such breach shall have the option of substituted performance through a third party or by his own agency, and, recover the expenses and other costs actually incurred, spent or suffered by him, from the party committing such breach.

(2) No substituted performance of contract under sub-section (1) shall be undertaken unless the party who suffers such breach has given a notice in writing, of not less than thirty days, to the party in breach calling upon him to perform the contract within such time as specified in the notice, and on his refusal or failure to do so, he may get the same performed by a third party or by his own agency:

Provided that the party who suffers such breach shall not be entitled to recover the expenses and costs under sub-section (1) unless he has got the contract performed through a third party or by his own agency.

(3) Where the party suffering breach of contract has got the contract performed through a third party or by his own agency after giving notice under sub-section (1), he shall not be entitled to claim relief of specific performance against the party in breach.

(4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the party who has suffered breach of contract from claiming compensation from the party in breach.

1. Subs. by s. 10, ibid., for section 20 (w.e.f. 1-10-2018)


CASE LAW REFERENCE

The discretion to direct specific performance of an agreement and that too after elapse of a long period of time, undoubtedly, has to be exercised on sound, reasonable, rational and acceptable principles. The parameters for the exercise of discretion vested by Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 cannot be entrapped within any precise expression of language and the contours thereof will always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Shenbagam v. KK Rathinavel [Supreme Court of India, 20 January 2022]

Shenbagam v. KK Rathinavel

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Merely averring that the plaintiff was waiting with the balance consideration and believed that the defendant would clear the encumbrance is insufficient to prove that the plaintiff was willing to perform his obligations under the contract.