Long-term land concession agreements may support specific performance and injunctions where damages are inadequate and termination is wrongful.

A long-term concession agreement over land was found, on a prima facie view, to support specific performance and interim injunctive relief because it granted exclusive possession and substantial rights to develop, construct, operate and manage the project. The court held that damages would not be an adequate remedy and that the arrangement fell within the exception under Section 14(3)(c). On the facts placed before it, the termination notice was found wrongful and illegal because the petitioner had been given time to complete works, had submitted progress reports, and no contemporaneous breach was shown. The termination notice was set aside and project continuation protected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the termination of the concession agreement was wrongful and illegal on the facts placed before the court; (ii) whether the contract was of such a nature that injunctive relief could be granted in aid of specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether the termination of the concession agreement was wrongful and illegal on the facts placed before the court.

Analysis: The materials showed that the petitioner had been given time to complete identified works, had submitted progress reports, and had not been met with any contemporaneous complaint that it was breaching the agreed development schedule. The environmental allegations in the termination notice were found to have arisen suddenly and without supporting material. On the prima facie view taken, the respondent had no convincing basis to terminate the contract when time had been extended and the petitioner was proceeding with the work.

Conclusion: The termination was held to be wrongful and illegal, and the finding was in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the contract was of such a nature that injunctive relief could be granted in aid of specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Analysis: The agreement gave the petitioner exclusive possession for a long term, with substantial rights to develop, construct, operate and manage the project on land. The court treated the arrangement as one involving work on land within the exception in Section 14(3)(c) and held that the petitioner had a substantial interest and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. The court further held, prima facie, that the contract was capable of specific performance and was not determinable in the manner urged by the respondent.

Conclusion: Injunctive relief was held maintainable, and the petitioner succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The interim protection was granted, the termination notice was set aside, and the petitioner was permitted to continue the project with restraint on further termination for the protected period.

Ratio Decidendi: A long-term concession granting exclusive possession and substantial development rights over land, where the work is specifically identifiable and damages are not an adequate remedy, may fall within the exception permitting specific performance and supporting interim injunction against wrongful termination.

---