Section 42 Specific Relief Act: Injunction to perform negative agreement

Section 42 of Specific Relief Act: Injunction to perform negative agreement

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (e) of section 41, where a contract comprises an affirmative agreement to do a certain act, coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, not to do a certain act, the circumstance that the court is unable to compel specific performance of the affirmative agreement shall not preclude it from granting an injunction to perform the negative agreement:

Provided that the plaintiff has not failed to perform the contract so far as it is binding on him.

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 42

Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 authorizes the court to grant an injunction to perform a negative agreement, notwithstanding that the affirmative agreement cannot be specifically enforced.

Core Legal Standard: Section 42 creates a major statutory exception to Section 41(e).
Operational Mechanism: It provides that notwithstanding anything contained in clause (e) of Section 41, where a contract comprises an affirmative agreement to do a certain act, coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, not to do a certain act, the circumstance that the court is unable to compel specific performance of the affirmative agreement shall not preclude it from granting an injunction to perform the negative agreement.

The single condition precedent set forth in the proviso is that the plaintiff must not have failed to perform the contract so far as it is binding on them. The section codifies the famous English rule in Lumley v. Wagner, permitting enforcement of negative covenants in commercial and employment arrangements.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545: The Supreme Court held that Section 42 permits enforcement of a negative covenant in a commercial contract (such as an agreement not to bottle or distribute competing beverages during the subsistence of the franchise), provided the covenant is reasonable and operates during the currency of the agreement.
Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1967 SC 1098: The Court ruled that negative covenants operating during the term of employment or contract do not violate Section 27 of the Contract Act and can be enforced by injunction under Section 42.

Legal Commentary:

Section 42 is critical in intellectual property, media, and exclusive commercial supply agreements. While courts cannot force an artist or manufacturer to perform positive services under Section 14, Section 42 allows the court to enjoin them from performing identical services for a commercial competitor during the contract period.

Section 42: Injunction to perform negative agreement

Section 42 of Specific Relief Act: Injunction to perform negative agreement

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 42