Equitable specific performance and foreign admiralty decree execution under civil procedure were upheld despite jurisdictional objections.

Specific performance remains a discretionary equitable remedy, assessed on fairness, justice, conduct, and the surrounding circumstances; refusal in favour of compensation is not automatic. On the facts, the claimant's conduct and the opposing party's compliance supported granting specific performance rather than substitutionary compensation. The article also explains that execution of a foreign Admiralty Court decree from a reciprocating territory is maintainable under the Code of Civil Procedure, and the executing Indian Admiralty Court need not apply the territorial competence test used for an original civil suit. In admiralty matters, jurisdiction may turn on the presence of the vessel or res within territorial waters, so objections based on lack of Indian nexus did not defeat execution.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether specific performance of the contract for sale should be refused and compensation awarded in its place; (ii) whether execution of a foreign Admiralty Court decree was maintainable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the executing Indian Admiralty Court was competent to entertain it.

Issue (i): Whether specific performance of the contract for sale should be refused and compensation awarded in its place.

Analysis: The grant of specific performance is not automatic. Under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the relief remains discretionary and must be tested on principles of fairness, justice, equity, and good conscience. The material circumstances, including the conduct of the party seeking relief and the motive behind the litigation, are relevant. On the facts found, the appellant had attempted to avoid the contract because of escalation in real estate prices, while the respondent had already deposited the consideration as directed. The case did not justify denial of specific performance on equitable grounds.

Conclusion: Specific performance was rightly granted and compensation in substitution was not warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether execution of a foreign Admiralty Court decree was maintainable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the executing Indian Admiralty Court was competent to entertain it.

Analysis: Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits execution of a decree of a superior court of a reciprocating territory, and the scheme of Sections 38 and 39 does not control away the special operation of that provision. The executing court is not required to satisfy the same territorial competence test applicable to an original suit under Sections 15 to 20. In admiralty matters, the presence of the res within territorial waters is a decisive jurisdictional fact, and a decree in personam arising from maritime claims may be executed where the corresponding Admiralty Court has jurisdiction over the vessel. The objections based on absence of Indian nexus and hypothetical hardship did not defeat maintainability.

Conclusion: Execution under Section 44-A was maintainable and the Indian Admiralty Court was competent to proceed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed. The decree for specific performance was affirmed with additional monetary directions, and the objection to execution of the foreign decree was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Specific performance remains a discretionary equitable remedy governed by fairness and conduct of the parties, and a foreign decree from a reciprocating territory may be executed under Section 44-A without importing the territorial competence test applicable to an original civil suit.

---