https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465742 The dominant issue was whether an interim injunction could enforce a negative covenant in a commercial addendum despite unilateral termination and objections that damages were adequate. The HC held that the claim sought enforcement of a negative covenant, not specific performance; hence Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (as amended in 2018) was inapplicable, and injunctions to enforce negative covenants remain permissible under Section 42, which would be defeated if termination barred enforcement. The restraint was also not void under Section 27 of the Contract Act as it operated during the contract term, and damages were not an adequate substitute given the indeterminate revenue impact. Territorial jurisdiction and arbitration objections were left open/undecided at this stage; the impugned refusal/vacation of interim relief was set aside and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. 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 dominant issue was whether an interim injunction could enforce a negative covenant in a commercial addendum despite unilateral termination and objections that damages were adequate. The HC held that the claim sought enforcement of a negative covenant, not specific performance; hence Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (as amended in 2018) was inapplicable, and injunctions to enforce negative covenants remain permissible under Section 42, which would be defeated if termination barred enforcement. The restraint was also not void under Section 27 of the Contract Act as it operated during the contract term, and damages were not an adequate substitute given the indeterminate revenue impact. Territorial jurisdiction and arbitration objections were left open/undecided at this stage; the impugned refusal/vacation of interim relief was set aside and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465742