Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.4. Pointing out to the fact that the agreement dated 04.02.2002, in fact contains the consequences of the breach also viz. the right of the plaintiff to proceed against the guarantor the second defendant in the event of failure by the first defendant to honour the Agreement dated 14.02.2002, the eighth defendant would contend that the plaintiffs cannot seek the declaratory relief and the negative injunction reliefs that are sought for by them against the eighth defendant or its Directors or the twelfth defendant. It is also the http://www.judis.nic.in  CS No.164 of 2011 and Ts Cs No.108 of 2017 further contention of the eighth defendant that its sale being one under the SARFAESI Act, the same is protected and it is free from all encumbrances.

3.5. Reference is also made to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, by the eighth defendant to contend that the declaratory relief sought for by the plaintiffs cannot be granted, since it would be a declaration without any further relief where the plaintiff is in a position to seek a further relief. The eighth defendant would further add that the reliefs of injunction being negative in nature cannot be granted unless the Court finds that grant of such negative injunction is absolutely necessary. The eighth defendant would also point out the conduct of the plaintiffs as well as defendants 1 and 2 to contend that there is an apparent collusion between the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2. Attack is made particularly on the conduct of the plaintiffs in not attempting to enforce the corporate guarantee given by the second defendant and attempting to collect its money.

[See: Ehrman v. Bartholomew (1927) W.N. 233 N.S. G.]” the learned counsel would contend that in view of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court can dehors the prohibition contained under Section 41(e) of the said Act grant an order of injunction for enforcement of a negative covenant, though it is discretionary. Attention is also drawn to the observations of the Calcutta High Court in Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., reported in 1996 (1) Cal LT 214, to buttress the submission that the Court can grant an order of injunction to enforce a negative covenant. The said position has also been reiterated by the Calcutta High Court in Board of Acting Governor of the La Martienere & Ors. v. National Engineering Industries Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2005 (2) CHN 207, wherein a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has observed that dehors the prohibition contained under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court can grant an injunction which will in effect be an enforcement of a negative covenant.

10.21. Even in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and others v. Coca Cola Co. and Others, reported in 1995 (5) SCC 545, very strongly relied upon by the plaintiffs in support of the proposition that the Court can grant an injunction to perform a negative covenant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has http://www.judis.nic.in  CS No.164 of 2011 and Ts Cs No.108 of 2017 qualified the grant of injunction and held that the plaintiff should not have failed to perform the contract so far as it is binding on him and the Court is not bound to grant an injunction in every case and an injunction to enforce a negative covenant would be refused, if it would indirectly compel the employee either to idleness or to serve the empower. Therefore, grant of a negative injunction is not automatic but the plaintiffs should go one step further and prove that it had performed its part of the contract. All the contracts dated 26.10.1988 by their very nature fall either under 14 (1) (b) or 14(1)(d) of the Specific Relief act. Therefore, grant of specific performance of the contracts is not possible. In such a backdrop, the Court would not grant an injunction to enforce a negative covenant invoking Section 42 in favour of the plaintiffs.