Determinable commercial contract doctrine bars specific performance and injunction where termination rights and continuous supervision are central.

A commercial Business Service Agreement requiring continuous interaction, personal qualifications and ongoing performance was treated as incapable of specific enforcement because it needed constant supervision and was expressly terminable on notice without cause. The alleged affirmative-vote protection in the related joint venture arrangements was regarded as a shareholder-level safeguard, not a bar to termination of the separate service agreement. Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was noted as not converting a non-enforceable contract into an enforceable one, and a negative covenant could not be used to obtain specific performance where the underlying contract was determinable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit seeking injunction and specific performance to restrain termination of the Business Service Agreement and to enforce the related covenant was maintainable in law.

Analysis: The agreement was held to be a detailed commercial contract involving numerous obligations, continuing interaction between the parties, and performance dependent on personal qualifications and volition. On that basis, it fell within the prohibitions against specific enforcement of contracts requiring constant supervision and contracts incapable of specific performance. The agreement was also expressly terminable, including by notice without cause, and was therefore determinable in nature. The affirmative-vote clause in the joint venture arrangements was treated as a shareholder-level protection and not as a restriction preventing termination of the separate service agreement by the channel owners in their distinct capacity. Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was held not to convert a non-enforceable contract into an enforceable one, and the alleged negative covenant could not be used to secure specific performance of a contract otherwise barred by Section 14.

Conclusion: The agreement was not specifically enforceable, the injunction sought could not be granted, and the suit was not maintainable for that relief.

Final Conclusion: The claim for injunctive and specific-performance relief failed because the underlying contract was determinable and incapable of judicial enforcement in the manner sought.

Ratio Decidendi: A contract that is determinable in nature, requires continuous supervision, or depends on personal qualification and volition cannot be specifically enforced, and Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 cannot be invoked to restrain termination of such a contract by recasting it as a negative covenant.

---