https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465742 The amended Specific Relief Act, 1963 was treated as shifting the remedial focus toward specific performance and stronger contractual enforcement rather than damages as the default remedy. A negative covenant in the addendum was held enforceable by injunction because it regulated conduct during the contract term and was distinct from compelling affirmative performance; Section 14 did not bar that relief. Section 27 of the Contract Act did not invalidate an in-term exclusivity restraint, and unilateral termination could not defeat it. Threshold objections on territorial jurisdiction were not sufficient at the interim stage, and the fraud allegation did not justify rejection of relief through arbitration. en-us Tue, 05 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2026 20:50:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465742 The amended Specific Relief Act, 1963 was treated as shifting the remedial focus toward specific performance and stronger contractual enforcement rather than damages as the default remedy. A negative covenant in the addendum was held enforceable by injunction because it regulated conduct during the contract term and was distinct from compelling affirmative performance; Section 14 did not bar that relief. Section 27 of the Contract Act did not invalidate an in-term exclusivity restraint, and unilateral termination could not defeat it. Threshold objections on territorial jurisdiction were not sufficient at the interim stage, and the fraud allegation did not justify rejection of relief through arbitration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465742