Which of the following statements is correct under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ?
Understanding Injunctions Under The Specific Relief Act, 1963
The scenario involves a breach of an exclusive performance contract. Ajeet Singh agreed to perform exclusively for Yash Aditya Music Company for 2 years but broke the contract after one year to perform for another company. Yash Aditya Music Company seeks an injunction to stop Ajeet Singh from performing for BR Chopra & Company.
Analyzing Legal Provisions
The core issue is the enforceability of the contract, particularly the exclusive performance clause, under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
- Contracts for personal service are generally not specifically enforceable. Section 14(1)(b) of the Act states that a contract whose performance involves a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise will not be specifically enforced. Compelling someone to perform personal services falls under this.
- However, the Act allows for injunctions to prevent the breach of a contract. Section 41(e) specifically permits injunctions to restrain the repetition or continuance of a breach of contract.
- Crucially, an injunction can be granted to enforce a negative covenant, even in a contract for personal service. A negative covenant is a stipulation where a party promises *not* to do something. In this case, Ajeet Singh's agreement to perform *exclusively* implies a negative covenant – he agreed *not* to perform for others.
Evaluating the Options
- Option 1: Incorrect. The court cannot typically compel specific performance of a personal service contract (like singing).
- Option 2: Incorrect. While damages might be an option, the question focuses on the specific remedy sought (injunction) and the available legal principles. An injunction is a distinct possibility here.
- Option 3: Correct. The contract contains a negative covenant (exclusivity, meaning not performing for others). The Specific Relief Act, 1963, allows an injunction to enforce such a negative stipulation, preventing Ajeet Singh from performing for a rival company.
- Option 4: Incorrect. While contracts of personal service cannot be *compulsorily* performed, an injunction *can* be granted to enforce the negative restrictions within them.
Conclusion
The Yash Aditya Music Company can seek an injunction to enforce the negative aspect of the contract – the exclusivity clause – which prevents Ajeet Singh from performing for BR Chopra & Company.
Important Questions from Mixed Topic (AIBE)
- Directions : The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and the other labelled as Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are individually true and if so, whether the Reason (R) is a correct explanation of the Assertion (A).
Assertion (A) : The Constitution of India does not adopt a rigid separation of powers among the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.
Reason (R) : The constitutional framework incorporates a system of checks and balances, allowing limited functional overlap among the organs of the State.
In the context of the Constitution of India, which one of the following is correct ? - "The rules of natural justice were not confined to the narrow precincts of the prevailing definition of quasi-judicial functions." This principle was laid down in which case ?
- Under constitutional jurisprudence in India, repeated re-promulgation of Ordinances without placing them before the Legislature was described by the Supreme Court as a "fraud on the Constitution" in which decision ?
- Under the Patents Act, 1970, a patent is granted to an inventor in India. Which of the following correctly reflects a limitation on the patentee's rights under the law ?
Directions : The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and the other labelled as Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are individually true and if so, whether the Reason (R) is a correct explanation of the Assertion (A).
Assertion (A) : An ex parte decree may be set aside if the defendant satisfies the court that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing.
Reason (R) : Under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court must be satisfied that the summons was not duly served or that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing.
Mark your answer as :
