Specifically Enforceable Agreement

Point (b) of Section 14 now states that a contract “whose performance involves the fulfilment of an uninterrupted obligation that the court cannot control” cannot be explicitly enforced. An equivalent provision was also available as section 14 (d) of the old act. A contract for the payment of a pension B for the life of C and D. It turns out that C, although considered alive by A and B, had died at the time of the contract. The contract cannot be executed specifically. A is a land trustee with the power to lease it for seven years. He enters into a contract with B to grant a lease on the land for a period of seven years, with the contract to extend the lease after the expiry of the term. This treaty cannot be implemented in a specific way. Contracts A and B to become partners in a given company, without specifying the duration of the proposed partnership. This contract cannot be executed specifically, because if it has been executed, either A or B could terminate the partnership immediately. The developers of a labour-mining company bear the cost that the company, when it is created, buys certain mining properties. They do not make reasonable arrangements to determine the value of this property – and therefore agree to pay an extravagant price. They also require sellers to give them a bonus of buying money.

This treaty cannot be implemented in a specific way. Your Highness Maharani Shantidevi P Gaikwadv. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel (2001 5 SCC 101), houses for the weaker parts of society had to be built. The applicant and the defendant entered into the corresponding agreement on construction. Subsequently, however, the defendant stated that the agreement and the insurance under oath were illegal and were therefore unable for the applicants and the defendants to enter into the contractual obligations. Irritated, the applicant had filed a decree for the concrete implementation of the agreement, which was issued by both the Tribunal and the High Court. Later, when the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, the appeal was accepted and the Supreme Court held that the performance of that contract, given the nature of the settlement and the facts and circumstances of the case, would involve ongoing monitoring that is not possible. In addition, it is said: “… it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to continuously monitor and monitor the construction and subsequent allocation of these houses. (2) With the exception of the 1940 Arbitration Act, no contract for references to current or future differences is explicitly applied; but if a person who has entered into such a contract (with an agreement other than the arbitration agreement to which the provisions of the aforementioned law apply) and has refused to do so, complains, with respect to all the subjects he has mandated to refer, the existence of such a contract is to prohibit the appeal. There are a number of contracts that cannot be implemented in practice due to restrictions and potential problems with the legality of the contract itself.3 min read the High Court of Kerala in R.

Nitya vs. Dhanlaxmi Bank Limited – Ors. (O.P. (C) No. 355 of 2015 (O)) found that a contract of service to the person could not be expressly applied in accordance with Section 14 (1) b) of the Specific Relief Act of 1963. This position was adopted by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Rohit Kumar against Tata Tele Services Limited and Ors. (RSA 596/2012), as the Court of Justice has stated that, if the relationship between the parties as an employer and worker is contractual, the right to perform the service contract is prohibited on the basis of an employer`s personal will under Section 14, paragraph 1, point b), the Specific Relief Act of 1963.