Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

66. In the present case, the contract contains both affirmative covenants as also negative/covenants (express or implied). Even assuming, but not conceding, that the present contract is not specifically enforceable, it has been submitted that the Court should grant an injunction to prevent TISCO from Committing breach of such negative covenant and/or its obligation under the agreement.

67. It has been submitted that in each case the Court should examine the substance of the agreement and not its form to ascertain whether there is a negative covenant.

76. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the balance of convenience also dictates that the status quo order should be continued till the disposal of arbitration proceeding.

77. The submissions made on behalf of TISCO, on the other hand, may be summarised as under :-

(i) There is no express negative covenant in the agreement,

(ii) Negative covenant, if any, is in favour of TISCO.

(iii) Damages are adequate remedy.

It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent-TISCO that the only obligation of TISCO towards ICCL is to make payment at the agreed rate upon conversion of the materials and delivery of the same to TISCO. From the said obligation one cannot possibly imply a negative covenant in favour of ICCL at all. In case of any alleged breach ICCL can claim conversion charges.

96. It cannot be disputed that if there is a negative covenant, injunction should be granted even though the contract is not specifically enforceable Section 41(e) of Specific Relief Act read with Section 42 thereof), Section 42 specifically provides that the circumstances in which the Court is unable to compel specific performance, the Court is nevertheless empowered to grant injunction to perform a negative covenant. This position is undisputed.

97. In the present case, the contract contains both affirmative covenants as also negative/covenants (express or implied).

122. With regard to the first submission of TISCO it cannot be disputed that there are not only express negative covenants but also affirmative covenants coupled with implied negative convenants. Affirmative covenants in the agreement shown above necessarily implied negative covenants against TISCO. Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act provides for the circumstances wherein the Court cannot compel specific performance of affirmative agreement. It further Provides that the affirmative agreement to do certain acts coupled with negative agreement the Court though unable to compel specific performance would grant injunction to perform the negative covenants in the agreement.