Home  /  Specific Relief Act  /  Section 30

Section 30: Court may require party rescinding to do equity

Specific Relief Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1963
Section 29 All 44 Sections of Specific Relief Act Section 31

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 30

Section 30 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 empowers the Court, on adjudging the rescission of a contract, to require the party to whom such relief is granted to do equity by restoring benefits and making compensation.

  • He Who Seeks Equity Must Do Equity: On adjudging the rescission of a contract, the Court may require the party to whom such relief is granted to restore, so far as may be, any benefit which they have received from the other party.
  • Award of Compensation: The Court may require them to make any compensation to the other party which justice may require.
  • Restoring Status Quo Ante: Ensures that rescission does not result in unjust enrichment of the party obtaining cancellation.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • State of M.P. v. Kaluram, AIR 1967 SC 1105: The Supreme Court held that the principle of Section 30 is grounded in the foundational maxim that he who seeks equity must do equity; a party rescinding a contract cannot retain financial advances received under it.
  • Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, (1903) 30 IA 114: The Privy Council established the classic restitutionary principles governing cancellation of void or voidable instruments.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

If representing a defendant in a suit where the plaintiff claims rescission, invoke Section 30 to demand that the court condition any rescission decree upon the plaintiff refunding all advance moneys, development costs, or earnest deposits.

Section 29 All 44 Sections of Specific Relief Act Section 31