The Supreme Court stated once more that an action to cancel an instrument brought under Section
31 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963 is not an action in rem. It implies that the undoing
of instrument according to this segment will tie just the gatherings to the procedures and won’t
work
generally against everybody.
A seat including Judges Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal mentioned this objective fact while
concluding an allure in which the issue was whether the discretion provision in a turn of events
understanding might have been summoned in a suit which has been recorded looking for wiping out
of the
exact same arrangement. The High Court intervened in revision while the trial court referred the
parties to arbitration.
Because adjudication under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act is considered an adjudication in rem,
the High Court intervened. “However, in the case of Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited, this Court
has categorically held that it is impossible to hold that an action instituted under Section 31 of the
Specific Relief for cancellation of an instrument is an action in rem,” the bench noted in Deccan
Paper Mills Company Limited v. Regency Mahavir Properties and Ors.
The bench decided that the dispute is one about whether or not the Development Agreement can
legally be cancelled, or whether the Development Agreement can still be cancelled. Therefore, in
accordance with the arbitration clause, the cancellation issue must be referred to arbitration if it
cannot be resolved between the parties.
SRISHTI BHARWAJ, BCOM LLB 8 TH SEM
0 Comments