https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197895 An interim mandatory injunction directing continuance of a contract was held to be unwarranted where the agreement was prima facie determinable and the alleged loss was capable of being compensated in damages. The Court noted that at the ad-interim stage it could not finally decide disputed questions about termination, and that a party's clear unwillingness to continue the agreement made revival by interim order ordinarily impermissible. Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 barred specific enforcement of a determinable contract, and Section 41(e) likewise prevented injunction where the contract was not specifically enforceable. The petition was rejected at the interim stage. en-us Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jan 2018 17:13:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197895 An interim mandatory injunction directing continuance of a contract was held to be unwarranted where the agreement was prima facie determinable and the alleged loss was capable of being compensated in damages. The Court noted that at the ad-interim stage it could not finally decide disputed questions about termination, and that a party's clear unwillingness to continue the agreement made revival by interim order ordinarily impermissible. Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 barred specific enforcement of a determinable contract, and Section 41(e) likewise prevented injunction where the contract was not specifically enforceable. The petition was rejected at the interim stage. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197895