Discussion
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 ?
Answer: A
The injunction may be granted to enforce the negative covenant.
A contract for personal service cannot be specifically enforced, so the court will not order Ajeet Singh to sing for the company. But Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that where a contract contains an affirmative agreement coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, the court may grant an injunction to perform the negative agreement even though it cannot compel performance of the affirmative one. This is the rule of the English case Lumley v. Wagner (1852), where an opera singer was restrained from singing elsewhere.
The 'must be refused' option overlooks Section 42, compelling him to sing is barred, and damages are not the only relief where an express negative covenant exists.
Post your comment
Please log in or register to post a comment.
Examination Categories
- SSC Exams
- Banking Exams
- Teaching Exams
- Civil Services Exams
- Railways Exams
- Engineering Recruitment Exams
- Defence Exams
- State Government Exams
- Police Exams
- Insurance Exams
- Nursing Exams
- Other Government Exams
- NRA CET
- PG Entrance Exams
- Campus Placement
- MBA Entrance Exams
- CUET and UG Entrance
- Judiciary Exams
- Regulatory Body Exams
- Software Development