THE NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE

UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

DOCTRINAL PROJECT

CONTRACTS WHICH CANNOT BE SPECIFICALLY ENFORCED

Submitted by: Submitted to:

KESHAV VYAS ASST.Prof. RIDHIMA DIKSHIT
2021BALLB 94
Enroll no. A-2391

FIRST SEMESTER
B. A. LL. B. (Hons.)

NOVEMBER 2021
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

“I extend my sincere gratitude to Asst. Prof. Mrs. Ridhima Dikshit for providing
me an opportunity to work on this Doctrinal research of “Contracts which Cannot
be Specifically Enforced”. I express my thankfulness to him for his guidance on
the nuances of case analysis, taking a keen interest in the project and providing
constant encouragement along with constructive criticism at every stage of the
process.
I am also thankful to my family for providing relentless support in every way
possible.”

Keshav Vyas

ii
 DECLARATION

I, Keshav Vyas, D/O Shrikant Vyas Roll Number 2021BALLB94 Enrolment

Number A-2391 do hereby declare that this Doctrinal Research of “Contracts which
Cannot be Specifically Enforced” “is an outcome of my own independent research

endeavour and has been carried out under the guidance of Asst. Prof. Mrs. Ridhima
Dikshit. Literature relied on by me for the purpose of this Project has been fully and

completely acknowledged in the footnotes and bibliography. The Project is not

plagiarized and all reasonable steps have been taken to avoid plagiarism. Similarity
Index as per the Turnitin Report is____%.” In case, my project is found to be
plagiarized, the course teacher shall have the full liberty to ask me to revise the
Project. If I fail to comply with the instructions of the teacher, my project may be
referred to the Committee Against Use of Unfair Means and I will comply with the
decision of the said Committee.

Keshav Vyas

iii
 TABLE OF CASES

 “GENERAL MANAGER, PENCH AREA, PARASIA, M.P. Vs. BARKAN

ALIAS KANHAIYA”

 “SANJANA M. WIG (MS) Vs. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD”

 “STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. S.N GOYAL”

 “Ram Awadh (dead) by LRs. and others vs. Achhaibar Dubey and another”

 “SMT.SUNITA MOHAPATRA V. SURESH DHANUKA”

 CHANDER SHEKHAR MALHOTRA Vs. NIRLON LIMITED & OTHERS

 “PERCEPT D'MARK (India) (P) LTD V. ZAHEER KHAN”

TABLE OF STATUTES

 Specific Relief Act, 1963

iv
  TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Introduction……………………………………….. 2
 Statement of Problem……………………….......... 3
 Hypothesis……………………………………........ 3
 Methodology………………………………………. 3
 Research Questions………………………………... 4
 Objectives of Study…………………………………4
 Review of Literature………………………………. 4
 “Contracts which cannot be specifically enfor
ced” : Meaning……………………………………… 6
 Types of Contract which Cannot be specific
ally enforced……………………………………….... 7
 Judicial interpretation on contracts which cann
ot be specifically enforced………………………….. 10
 Conclusion and Suggestion……………………........ 13
 Biblography…………………………………………. 14

v
 INTRODUCTION

“Specific Relief Act widens the sphere of the civil court, its pre amble shows that the Act is not
exhaustive of all kinds of specific reliefs. The Act is not restricted to specific performance of
contracts as the statute governs powers of the court in granting specific reliefs in a variety of
fields. Even so, the Act does not cover all specific reliefs conceivable”1

There are some contracts that cannot be specifically enforced by law which was explained under
“The Specific Relief Act,1963.”This act deals with the large number of remedial aspects of law
and take care of it .This act is replaced version of the earlier act of 1877. A mere statute for rights
and duties is not sufficient for remedies. It must be supplemented by legal devices which can
help the individual to enforce his/her rights. This is the main function of Specific Relief Act.

Under specific relief act ,it also explains about the contract that cannot be legally enforced which
was explained under section 14 of the specific relief act that states certain propositions in which
certain cases of contracts not allowed the relief of specific performance .

“There are some types of contract which are not specifically enforced :- 1.where the
compensation is adequate , 2. Contracts involving personal skills , 3. Contracts of determinable
nature , 4. Contracts requiring constant supervision, 5. Contracts which involves performance of
continuous duty extended more than three years, 6. Contract whose material fact of subject
matter supposed by both parties to exist has before it was made, ceased to exist, 7. Contract made
by or on behalf of corporation or public company created for special purpose ,or by promoters
which is in excess of its power . If any of the following components present under the contract
then that contract cannot be specifically enforced”.

This doctrinal project will discuss the “Contracts which cannot be specifically enforced.” The
project will also discuss the types of “contracts which cannot be specifically enforced” with
reference to the Specific Relief Act 1963. Project will also discuss sections in which “contracts
1
Ashok Kumar Srivastav v National Insurance Co Ltd, (1998) 4 SCC 361: AIR 1998 SC 2046

2
which cannot be specifically enforced” mentioned . Cases related to the contacts which cannot be
specifically enforced will also be discussed in this project.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

“Contracts which cannot be specifically enforced” present under section 14 of the “Specific
Relief Act 1963”. There are various types of “contracts which cannot be specifically enforced”.
This doctrinal project will study and analyze the “contracts which cannot be specifically
enforced” with reference to the “Specific Relief Act 1963” so that we can know which contracts
are not allowed for specific performance and that cannot be enforced. There are some contracts
in which specific performance is not allowed and therefore they cannot be enforced

HYPOTHESIS

There are some contracts in which specific performance is not allowed and therefore they cannot
be enforced. There are different elements which makes the contracts cannot be specifically
enforced. In this project contracts that cannot be specifically enforced will be studied and
analyzed with relevant cases. By doing this doctrinal project we can understand “contracts which
cannot be specifically enforced”, its types, and relevant cases related to this topic.

METHODOLOGY

The method adopted in this project is based on doctrinal research. This project will study and
explain about the “contracts which cannot be specifically enforced”. It follows with the cases
related with contracts which cannot be legally enforced.

3
 RESEARCH QUESTION

i. What does “contracts which cannot be specifically enforced” means ?

ii. What are the types of “contracts which cannot be specifically enforced”?
iii. What is the judicial interpretation over “contracts which cannot be specifically
enforced”?

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

i. The primary objective of the project is to study and analyze the “contracts which cannot
be specifically enforced”.
ii. To study and analyze the types of contracts that cannot be specifically enforced with their
further explaination.
iii. Analyze the subject topic with help of the cases delivered by courts.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In order to complete this project various literary sources taken into consideration which included
books, statutes, articles. Apart from it some websites are also referred while completing this
project. Some of the sources are as follows:

4
 1. “Textbook on Contract and Specific Relief” by Avtar Singh2
This renowned textbook on “Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Specific Relief Act” by noted
jurist and writer Dr. Avtar Singh was referred while working on this doctrinal project.
This book provides in depth knowledge of the Statutes and Sections with the help of
relevant cases. All the sections related to “contracts which cannot be specifically
enforced” present in “Specific Relief Act” are thoroughly explained by the author along
with several important cases and some of the cases are also cited in this project for better
understanding of the topic
2. “Textbook on Indian Contract Act & Specific Relief Acts” by Pollock and Mulla3
This renowned textbook on Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Specific Relief Act by Sir
Frederick Pollock and Dinshah Fardunji Mulla also taken into reference while working
on this doctrinal project which helps to understand the basic concepts of topics with the
help of relevant cases and statutes.
3. Article titled “Specific Performance of Contracts”4
This article published on Legal service India website was also referred while completing
this project. This article provides information about specific performance of contracts and
contracts which cannot be specifically enforced.

2
Singh, Avtar. Textbook on Contract and Specific Relief, 12thEdn, 2017, Eastern Book Co. Lucknow
3
Pollock and mulla, Indian Contract Act & Specific Relief Acts” by Pollock and Mulla (4th edn, Sweet &
maxwell 1919)
4
Legal service india , 'Specific Performance of Contracts' (Legal service India , 27 April
2019) <http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/942/Specific-performance-of-Contracts.html>  accessed 1
November 2021

5
 “CONTRACTS WHICH CANNOT BE SPECIFICALLY
ENFORCED”UNDER SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT 1963:
MEANING

“The Specific Relief Act is an act of the parliament which was approved on 13 December 1963.
This statute replaced an earlier Act of 1877. Many times the damages/ compensation awarded to
the plaintiff are not adequate, so this Act speaks about the reliefs which are imposed by the court
on the other party who fails to execute an obligation under the agreed contract. This remedy is
granted by the non-performing party itself since the monetary compensation in the form of
damages did not satisfy the other party in the contract”

Specific performance is an equitable remedy that is not granted automatically or as a matter of

right to the party seeking it, but is granted at the discretion of the court, which is exercised in
accordance with established sound judicial principles and after weighing all the circumstances of
each particular case.

When a component of a contract which, considered by itself, may and ought to be particularly
fulfilled, stands on a distinct and independent footing from another part of the same contract
which cannot or ought not to be specifically performed, the court may mandate specific
execution of the former part.

As a general rule, a court will not compel specific performance of a contract unless it can
perform the entire contract. This section discusses the various circumstances in which specific
performance may be granted with or without special conditions or restrictions. When a contract
is incapable of performance, the determining factor is always whether the contract can be
executed in substance.

Section 14 of the Act refers with contracts that cannot be specifically enforced. Section 14 (a)
covers a scenario where a party to the contract has acquired substituted execution of a contract.
This indicates that if substituted performance of a contract has been secured, such contract

6
cannot be specifically enforced. This does not however bar such party from obtaining
compensation from the party in breach.

“Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides for certain circumstances wherein a
contract cannot be specifically enforced or performed”

TYPES OF “CONTRACTS WHICH CANNOT BE

SPECIFICALLY ENFORCED”

“The effect of the provisions in Section 14 can be stated in terms of certain propositions, namely,
that in the case of the following contracts the relief of specific performance cannot be allowed”:

“According to Section 14 of Specific Relief Act 1963, there are certain contracts which cannot
be specifically enforced and these are”:

1. “Where compensation is adequate [S. 14(l)(a)]5” :

“Courts will not mandate specific performance of a contract if the injured party can
obtain an acceptable monetary remedy. A general contract to lend or borrow money, with
or without security, is an example of a contract that cannot be specifically enforced;
nevertheless, a loan granted with the expectation that security would be supplied against
it can be specifically enforced.6”
The court will not mandate specific performance of the contract in this case since the
plaintiff is expected to rely on the standard remedy for breach of contract, namely
compensation.
Illustration:
 If A and B engage into a deal for the sale of two thousand books. If A is unable
to implement the contract and sell the books for any reason, the court will give a

5
Singh, Avtar. Textbook on Contract and Specific Relief, 12thEdn, 2017, Eastern Book Co. Lucknow
6
“ S. 14(3). Meenakshisundara Mudaliar v. Rathnasami Pillai, ILR(1918) 41 Mad 959”

7
 decision for compensation, as compensation is an appropriate remedy and the
contract cannot seek Specific Relief under this statute.

“Contracts, the non-performance of which can sufficiently be compensated by the

payment of damages cannot be specifically performed as per S. 14(a) of the Act.”

2. “Contracts involving personal skill [S. 14(l)(b)]7” :

The court cannot regulate the fulfillment of a contract that involves minute and numerous
details, is reliant on the promisor's personal qualifications, or is otherwise of a volitional
nature.
“Contracts of employment, contracts of personal service, and contracts requiring artistic
skill performance, such as contracts to sing, paint, act, and contracts of authorship, are all
examples of things that require personal skill and, as such, are beyond the judicial
process's ability to enforce their actual performance. In such instances, the only option is
to accept damages.”
Illustration:
 A contract to perform her songs or dance twice a week in B's hotel for the next
two months at a rate of rupees 50000 each night. A commits contract violation. B
should not be awarded any Special Relief.
 A deal with B in which he agrees to paint a painting for B in exchange for 50000
rupees. A commits contract violation. B should not be awarded any Special
Relief.

3. “Contracts of determinable nature [S. 14(l)(c)]8” :

If a contract contains a clause stating that it will be terminated after a specified period of
time, then these types of contracts, which are determinable in nature are ineligible for
relief under this Act due to nonperformance.

7
Pollock and mulla, Indian Contract Act & Specific Relief Acts” by Pollock and Mulla (4th edn, Sweet &
maxwell 1919)
8
Singh, Avtar. Textbook on Contract and Specific Relief, 12thEdn, 2017, Eastern Book Co. Lucknow

8
 A determinable contract cannot be enforced. However, the question of what constitutes a
determinable contract is important. Determinable, in general, refers to revocable. It refers
to a contract that is determinable or revocable by one of the contract's parties; hence,
when a contract is determinable or revocable by one of the contract's parties, it cannot be
enforced.
Illustration:
 A and B enter into a contract to become partners in a certain firm, the document
making no mention of the prospective partnership's lifespan. This contract cannot
be expressly enforced, since if it is, either A or B will immediately terminate the
partnership.

Similarly, where the contract is revocable at the opposite party's discretion, no order of specific
performance is likely to be passed. This group includes revocable leases. However, a year-to-
year tenancy is specifically enforceable if either party gives the other half a year's notice to quit.

4. “Contract requiring constant supervision [S. 14(l)(d)]9” :

This section states that because certain contracts entail a sort of responsibility requiring
constant execution, it is practically impossible for the court to oversee the contract's
fulfillment. As a result, a party cannot seek remedy under this statute in this situation.

The 1963 specific relief act makes no reference to a time restriction for performing a
continuous task. As a result, section 14(1) (d) prohibits the court from directly enforcing
a contract that requires the execution of a continuous obligation that the court cannot
inspect.
Illustration:
 If D and S engage into a contract under which D provides 24 hour water supply,
any violation of contract will not be enforced under the Specific Relief Act, as
this requires constant monitoring, which a court cannot give.
 A leases land to B and B agrees to cultivate it in a certain manner for three years
following the lease date. If B commits a breach, A shall not be allowed any
special remedies.

9
ibid

9
 JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION ON “CONTRACTS
WHICH CANNOT BE SPECIFICALLY ENFORCED”

1. “GENERAL MANAGER, PENCH AREA, PARASIA, M.P. Vs. BARKAN ALIAS

KANHAIYA”10:-

“In this case, the High Court of M.P. found that the stance of the appellant that in view of
"Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963", the suit for specific performance is not
maintainable and is also susceptible to certain exceptions. It was found that since there
was a commitment to hire four employees the appellants should not be able to squirm out
the obligation by using the position that Section 14 of the Act prevents a suit of this sort
filed by the petitioner for fulfillment of duty.”

2. “SANJANA M. WIG (MS) Vs. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD”11:-

The respondent and the appellant, as well as one Smt Bimla Devi T. Obhan, who were
partners in "M/s Tilak Automobiles," engaged into a dealership agreement, which was
later terminated. According to the respondent, the stated agreement was terminated by a
notification dated 19-3-2004 in accordance with the conditions of clause 55 of the said
agreement. As a result, the petitioner did not receive remedy from the court since the
agreement had been terminated by the petitioner.

10
Appeal (civil) 2711 of 2001

11
Appeal (civil) 7337 of 2004

10
 3. “STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. S.N GOYAL”12:-

Specifically, it was determined in this case that "whether a civil court's order reinstating
the respondent constituted the award of specific performance under a contract of personal
service, which is prohibited under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963"

The petition was denied by the court and no remedy was granted under the Act because it
did not meet the requirements of the Act.

4. “Ram Awadh (dead) by LRs. and others vs. Achhaibar Dubey and another”13:-

It was argued that the plaintiff's case did not qualify for specific performance since, under
the terms of clause 3 of the agreement, the defendants may have been compelled to pay
double the amount of earnest money, i.e. Rs.66,000/-, if the plaintiff had prevailed.
According to the submissions of Shri Gude, the matter at hand is similarly one in which
the Court is unable to oversee the agreement reached between the parties. As a result, it
was argued that the plaintiff had committed a default by failing to execute the sale deed
in accordance with Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act 1963.

5. “SMT.SUNITA MOHAPATRA V. SURESH DHANUKA”14:-

In accordance with Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, injuction should not be
provided in the case of a contract for the non-performance of which compensation in
money is an acceptable remedy. The appellant has been instructed by the  court that, if
she want to do business, she should only do business with the respondent. With respect to
quality and variety, and the fact that the transaction would necessitate minute details to be
maintained between the parties, it will never be possible for the court to monitor them. In
addition, in the event that contract performance is to be continued, it will necessitate

12
Appeal (civil)  4243-4244 of 2004 (SC)
13
A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 860)
14
A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 887)

11
 supervision by the court, and it will be impossible for the court to monitor all the details
with an expert hand. In addition, in the event of contract violation, it will be impossible
for the court to monitor all the details with an expert hand until it becomes

6. “CHANDER SHEKHAR MALHOTRA Vs. NIRLON LIMITED & OTHERS”15:-

The plaintiff has brought this lawsuit in order to get a statement that he continues to be
employed even after the 9th of January, 1999, and that he is entitled to work and
compensation. On January 9, 1999, a Notice of Motion was filed with a petition for an
injunction preventing the defendants from acting on the letter of termination and for an
order to pay the plaintiff his monthly salary in full from January 1999 and on a month-to-
month basis after that. The declaration does not specify how the contract should be
enforced in any particular way. A declaration and injunction granted under the Specific
Relief Act are totally discretionary, and the plaintiff cannot assert their entitlement to
them as a matter of course. "The grant of specific performance is purely discretionary and
must be refused when not warranted by the ends of justice."

7. “PERCEPT D'MARK (India) (P) LTD V. ZAHEER KHAN” 16:-

“In this case it was held that the specific performance of a contract for personal,
confidential and fiduciary service dependent on mutual trust, faith and confidence has
been held to be barred under Section 14(l)(a),(b) &c (d)17”.

15
MANU/MH/0111/2000
16
(2006) 4 SCC 227
17
Singh, Avtar. Textbook on Contract and Specific Relief, 12thEdn, 2017, Eastern Book Co. Lucknow

12
 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 is critically needed to maintain pace with the country's rapid
economic expansion, since it contains a set of reliefs for the parties to the litigation. Oftentimes,
parties are not supplied with sufficient remedies during a breach of contract, and it is at this point
that this act is critical. This legislation contains a variety of reliefs and enforcement provisions
that are aimed at giving adequate recompense to everybody. The primary goal is for one
individual to bear the costs of the damages and losses they sustained, and for those who caused
them to be held accountable. This legislation ensures justice for all, even those not subject to the
Specific Relief Act, as specified in S. 14. As a result, it brings justice to those who have been
wronged. Additionally, it should be remembered that particular performance is a discretionary
remedy, and the Court may decline to issue it even if the contract does not fit under S. 14.

“The Specific Relief Act of 1963 confers a right on a party to a contract that, in the event of
nonperformance of the contract, any of the parties may compel the nonperforming party to
perform their obligations, as compensation frequently falls short of compensating the other party
who suffered damages as a result of the nonperformance of the contract. Section 14 of this
legislation discusses contracts that are not specifically enforceable under the 1963 Specific Relief
Act.”

Thus as it stated in the hypothesis part that by doing this doctrinal research we can understand
the “contracts which cannot be specifically enforced”, So I think this doctrinal project clearly
explains and analyze different aspects of contracts which are not specifically enforceable and it
also discussed the judicial interpretation over this subject.

By doing this project one can understand which contracts are not allowed for specific
performance and that cannot be enforced as per “specific relief act of 1963”. There are some
contracts in which specific performance is not allowed and therefore they cannot be enforced.

13
 BIBLOGRAPHY

STATUTES

 Specific Relief Act, 1963

BOOKS

 Avtar Singh. Textbook on Contract and Specific Relief, 12thEdn, 2017,

Eastern Book Co. Lucknow

 Indian Contract Act & Specific Relief Acts” by Pollock and Mulla (4th
edn, Sweet & maxwell 1919)

WEBSITES

 Legalserviceindia.com , 'Specific Performance of Contracts' (Legal service

India , 27April2019) <http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/942/
Specific-performance-of-Contracts.html> 

14