Judgment On Specific Performance

1. R. Nitya vs. Dhanlaxmi Bank Limited & Ors. (O.P. (C) No. 355 of 2015(O))
The High Court of Kerela held that “there is a clear distinction between public
employment governed by statutory rules and private employment governed purely
through contractual obligations. In the case of a private employment governed
through contractual obligations, the only relief that can be availed of by the employee
is the relief by way of damages and not reinstatement”.

2. Rohit Kumar vs.Tata Tele Services Limited and Ors. (RSA No. 596/2012)
The High Court of Himach Pradesh states that the relationship between the parties as
employer and employee is contractual, right to enforce the contract of service
depending on personal volition of an employer, is prohibited in terms Section 14 (1)
(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. With respect to private contracts of personal
service, it is settled law that contracts of personal service are not enforceable as
is evident from the perusal of Section 14 (1) (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
The court further held that contracts of personal service were not enforceable as
was evident from Section 14 (1) (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

3. In State Bank of India & Ors. v. S.N. Goyal [(2008) 8 SCC 92],
The Supreme Court of India observed that, the principle was reaffirmed; the two‐
judge bench held that where the relationship of master and servant is purely
contractual, it is well‐settled that a contract of personal service is not specifically
enforceable.

4. Optimal Solutions Pvt Ltd. vs. Vijender Singh (CS(OS) 1807/2009)

The High Court observed that contracts for personal services are dependent on mutual
trust and confidence and specific performance of such contracts were held to be
barred under Section 14 (1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

5. Nandganj Sihori Sugar vs. Badi Nath Dixit (AIR 1991SC 1525)
The Supreme Court held that contract of personal service involving the relationship of
master and servant, Halsbury lays down "A judgement for specific performance of a
contract for personal work or services is not pronounced, either at the suit of the
employer or the employee. The court does not seek to compel persons against their
will to maintain continuous personal and confidential relations.

6. Narendra Hirawat v. Sholay Media

The Bombay High Court held that the word ‘determinable’ means “at the sweet will
of a party”, without any breach, eventuality, or circumstance, i.e., a unilateral right to
termination without assigning or having any reason to terminate. Therefore, the court
held that a license is not determinable as the contract could be terminated only on the
 occurrence of a breach. Since the determination depends on an eventuality, which
may or may not occur, the contract cannot be held to be determinable.The court
distinguished the leading authorities and held that in all three cases, there was a clause
in the agreement, which permitted termination of the contract by a notice of thirty
days without assigning any reason. Hence, such contracts, which can be terminated by
either party (such as a partnership at will), without any reason, are by their very nature
‘determinable’.

7. Church of North India v. Ashoke Biswas

The court held the bishop’s dispute with the church was not a “master-servant”
relationship, but could be adjudicated as a contract dispute guided by the CNI
constitution and canons under the Indian Special Relief Act. “The nature of job
performed by the Bishop is thus not a ‘personal service’ insofar as the present
dispute is concerned,” The High Court of Calcutta held that any suit in which a
decree was not passed on the date of coming into force of the 2018 Amendment, i.e.,
01.10.2018 would fall within the scope of the amendment. The court was of the view
that the enforcement of contract has to be considered at the time of passing of the
decree and not the date of institution of the suit. Therefore, the 2018 Amendment will
apply retrospectively, and all pending suits will fall within its ambit

8. Mukesh Singh And 4 Ors vs Saurabh Chaudhary And Another on 3 May, 2019

The Allahabad High Court has held that the effect of the substitution of new
provisions is that the old ones are repealed and are no longer available. Therefore,
only the substituted provisions can be made applicable, and the General Clauses Act
is not attracted. It was observed that contracts cannot be enforceable on the basis
of personal qualifications of the parties that the court cannot enforce specififc
performance of its material terms. Thus, a contract is determinable in nature.