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.