Question

Ajeet Singh, a famous singer, enters into a contract with Yash Aditya Music Company agreeing to perform exclusively for them for 2 years and not to perform for any other company during that period. After one year, Ajeet Singh refuses to perform for Yash Aditya Music Company and begins performing for BR Chopra & Company. Yash Aditya Music Company files a suit seeking an injunction restraining Ajeet Singh from performing for BR Chopra & Company. Which of the following statements is correct under the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

• A. The injunction may be granted to enforce the negative covenant.
• B. Only damages can be granted.
• C. The injunction must be refused because contracts of personal service cannot be enforced.
• D. The court must compel Ajeet Singh to sing for Yash Aditya Music Company.

Hint:

Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act is your key here: You can't force someone to work (positive), but you can stop them from working for others (negative) if they agreed to it!

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Contracts for personal service raise a special problem, courts will not force someone to actually work for another party, but that does not mean such contracts are toothless. When the agreement also contains a promise not to work elsewhere, equity steps in through the negative covenant. This is the reasoning that decides the present case.

1. Compelling Ajeet Singh to perform: No court will order a person to render personal service against their wishes, this would turn a civil contract into something like forced labour, so this route is not available.
2. Refusing any injunction outright: This overstates the personal-service bar. The bar stops the court from ordering the positive act of singing for the company, it does not stop the court from restraining the singer from breaching his separate promise not to sing for a competitor.
3. Limiting the remedy to damages: Money compensation is not the only tool here since equity specifically allows an injunction against breach of a distinct negative stipulation, so damages alone would understate the available relief.
4. Granting the injunction to enforce the negative covenant: Ajeet Singh's promise not to perform for any other company during the two years is a separate, negative obligation. Even though he cannot be forced to sing for Yash Aditya Music Company, he can be restrained from singing for BR Chopra & Company, which upholds the deal without compelling personal labour.

The negative promise stands on its own footing from the positive one, and it is this negative promise that the court will protect through an injunction.

Answer 2

Four possible outcomes are offered for this dispute, and testing each against the settled position on personal-service contracts under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 quickly narrows the field to one.

1. Only damages can be granted: Treating damages as the exclusive remedy overlooks the equitable jurisdiction to injunct breaches of negative stipulations, so this understates what the law actually permits in a case like this one.
2. The court must compel Ajeet Singh to sing for Yash Aditya Music Company: Specific performance of a contract requiring continuous personal skill or service is not granted, because supervising and enforcing such an order would be impractical and would amount to compelling labour against a person's will.
3. The injunction must be refused because contracts of personal service cannot be enforced: This treats the bar on specific performance as if it also barred injunctions against negative covenants, which is not correct. The two obligations, positive and negative, are assessed separately, so refusing an injunction outright is too broad a conclusion.
4. The injunction may be granted to enforce the negative covenant: Ajeet Singh's contract contains a distinct promise not to perform for any other company for two years. Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act permits an injunction against breach of such a negative stipulation even where the affirmative promise to perform cannot itself be specifically enforced, a principle long recognised since Lumley v. Wagner. Restraining him from performing for BR Chopra & Company gives Yash Aditya Music Company the protection the contract intended, without forcing Ajeet Singh to sing against his will.

Ruling out blanket refusal, compelled performance, and damages-only relief leaves the negative-covenant injunction as the sound outcome.

Hence, the correct answer is The injunction may be granted to enforce the negative covenant.