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

Hint:

Remember the formula: \[ \text{Personal Service Contract} \Rightarrow \text{No Specific Performance} \] but \[ \text{Negative Covenant} \Rightarrow \text{Injunction Possible} \] This is one of the most frequently tested principles under the Specific Relief Act.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understand the facts.
Ajeet Singh, a singer, agrees to perform only for Yash Aditya Music Company for two years and not for any other company. After one year he refuses and starts singing for BR Chopra and Company. The first company asks the court to stop him. We must find the correct position under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Step 2: Identify the type of contract.
Singing needs personal talent and skill. So this is a contract of personal service. Courts cannot force a person to give an artistic performance.

Step 3: Separate the two promises.
The contract has a positive promise (to sing for Yash Aditya) and a negative promise (not to sing for any other company during the period). The positive one cannot be specifically enforced.

Step 4: Apply the rule on negative covenants.
Although the court cannot make him sing, it can stop him from breaking the exclusivity promise. This follows the well-known case of Lumley v. Wagner, where a singer was stopped from performing elsewhere.

Step 5: Apply to the facts.
The court can issue an injunction restraining Ajeet Singh from performing for BR Chopra and Company during the rest of the contract period. This enforces the negative covenant.

Step 6: Check the other options.
The court cannot compel him to actually sing, so option 1 is wrong. Damages are not the only remedy, so option 2 is wrong. The injunction is not refused outright, because the negative covenant can be protected, so option 4 is wrong.

\[ \boxed{\text{The injunction may be granted to enforce the negative covenant.}} \]