https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221786 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. en-us Tue, 19 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221786 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 19 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221786