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

Concept: The Specific Relief Act, 1963 distinguishes between positive covenants (promises to do something) and negative covenants (promises not to do something). While courts generally refuse to specifically enforce contracts involving personal skill, talent, or personal service, they may restrain a person from violating a valid negative stipulation contained in such contracts. The principle originated from the famous English case of Lumley v. Wagner, where an opera singer who had agreed to perform exclusively for one theatre was restrained from performing elsewhere.

Step 1: Identify the nature of the contract.
* Ajeet Singh is a professional singer. * Singing requires personal talent, artistic skill, reputation, and individual judgment. * Such contracts are classified as contracts of personal service. Therefore, the court cannot compel Ajeet Singh to actually sing for Yash Aditya Music Company because specific performance of personal service contracts is generally prohibited.

Step 2: Examine the obligations undertaken by Ajeet Singh.
The contract contains two separate promises:

• A positive covenant: quote "Ajeet Singh shall perform for Yash Aditya Music Company." quote

• A negative covenant: quote "Ajeet Singh shall not perform for any other company during the contract period." quote
The first obligation cannot be specifically enforced, but the second obligation can be enforced through an injunction.

Step 3: Application of the Specific Relief Act.
* The court cannot force artistic performance. * However, the court can prevent the breach of the exclusive service clause. * Therefore, the court may issue an injunction restraining Ajeet Singh from performing for BR Chopra & Company during the remaining contractual period.

Step 4: Why the other options are incorrect.
* Option (A) is incorrect because courts cannot compel personal artistic performances. * Option (B) is incorrect because injunction is also available. * Option (D) is incorrect because although personal service cannot be specifically enforced, the negative covenant can still be protected.

A court cannot compel a singer to perform, but it can prevent him from performing for a rival company if he has agreed to exclusivity.

Answer 2

This question tests the distinction the Specific Relief Act draws between compelling a positive personal act and restraining a negative promise, so each option can be checked against that distinction.

1. The court must compel Ajeet Singh to sing for Yash Aditya Music Company: Courts do not grant specific performance of contracts that depend on personal skill, taste, or artistic judgment, because such enforcement would require ongoing judicial supervision of a personal performance and effectively force involuntary service. This option asks for exactly that kind of impermissible compulsion, so it fails.
2. Only damages can be granted: While damages remain available in principle, the law does not confine the aggrieved party to damages alone when the contract also contains an enforceable negative stipulation; an injunction restraining the breach of that stipulation is an additional, distinct remedy the party may pursue. Limiting the remedy to damages ignores this separate injunctive route.
3. The injunction may be granted to enforce the negative covenant: Even though the court cannot force Ajeet Singh to perform for Yash Aditya, it can restrain him from doing the very thing he expressly promised not to do, namely performing for a rival company during the exclusivity period. This matches the settled position that a negative stipulation within a personal service contract can be enforced through an injunction, independent of whether the positive obligation can be specifically enforced.
4. The injunction must be refused because contracts of personal service cannot be enforced: This conflates the rule against specifically enforcing the positive promise to perform with the separate, narrower question of restraining the negative promise not to perform elsewhere. The personal-service bar applies to compelling the performance itself, not to restraining its breach through a negative injunction, so this option incorrectly extends that bar.

The contract contains two distinct obligations, and only the negative one attracts injunctive relief; that is exactly what happens here.

The correct answer is therefore that the injunction may be granted to enforce the negative covenant.