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

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
Under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, specifically Section 42, the court cannot compel the performance of a contract of personal service (which would be akin to forced labor), but it can enforce a negative covenant contained within such a contract.

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
- A positive covenant (singing for the company) in a personal service contract cannot be specifically enforced by an injunction.
- However, if the contract includes a negative covenant (not to sing for anyone else), the court may grant an injunction to prevent the breach of that negative promise, even if it cannot directly enforce the positive promise.
- This is a well-established principle in law, often illustrated by the case Lumley v. Wagner.

Step 3: Final Answer:
The court can grant an injunction to restrain the artist from performing for competitors, thus enforcing the negative covenant. Therefore, (A) is correct.

Answer 2

The scenario involves a personal service contract containing both a positive obligation, to perform exclusively for the company, and a negative obligation, not to perform for anyone else, so the analysis under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 must treat these two obligations separately.

1. "Injunction may be granted to enforce the negative covenant": Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act allows a court, even where it cannot compel specific performance of an affirmative personal-service obligation, to grant an injunction restraining the breach of an express negative stipulation in the same contract. Since Ajeet Singh expressly agreed not to perform for any other company, the court can injunct him from singing for BR Chopra & Company, without forcing him to sing for Yash Aditya. This principle traces back to the classic case Lumley v. Wagner and is the correct outcome here.
2. "Only damages can be granted": This ignores the settled rule that negative covenants in personal-service contracts are specifically enforceable by injunction, damages are not the sole remedy available, since equity permits restraining the breach directly.
3. "The injunction must be refused because contracts of personal service cannot be enforced": This conflates the bar on compelling positive performance with the treatment of negative covenants. The bar applies only to forcing someone to actually render personal service, it does not prevent a court from stopping that person from working for a rival.
4. "The court must compel Ajeet Singh to sing for Yash Aditya Music Company": Courts do not order specific performance of contracts involving personal skill or service, since this would amount to compelling continuous personal labour, which the law refuses to enforce directly.

Because the negative promise not to perform elsewhere is distinct and enforceable even though the positive promise to perform cannot be, the injunction restraining Ajeet Singh from singing for the rival company is the appropriate relief.

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