https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198198 A temporary injunction to stop performance of a construction contract was unavailable because the memorandum disclosed no express or implied negative covenant, the underlying contract was not specifically enforceable under Section 14(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and Section 41(e) therefore barred injunctive relief; Section 42 did not apply because the proviso was not satisfied. The appellate court also refused to disturb the trial court's discretionary denial of interim relief, applying the settled rule that interference is justified only where discretion is exercised unreasonably or on irrelevant considerations. On the facts, the absence of supporting material, the performance dispute, and the balance of convenience did not favour the appellant. en-us Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:57:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198198 A temporary injunction to stop performance of a construction contract was unavailable because the memorandum disclosed no express or implied negative covenant, the underlying contract was not specifically enforceable under Section 14(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and Section 41(e) therefore barred injunctive relief; Section 42 did not apply because the proviso was not satisfied. The appellate court also refused to disturb the trial court's discretionary denial of interim relief, applying the settled rule that interference is justified only where discretion is exercised unreasonably or on irrelevant considerations. On the facts, the absence of supporting material, the performance dispute, and the balance of convenience did not favour the appellant. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198198