Contracts not specifically enforceable
Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with contracts not specifically enforceable. 1The following contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely:-- (a) where a party to the contract has obtained substituted performance of contract in accordance with the provisions of section 20; The Act came into force on 01 Mar 1964.
1The following contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely:--
(a) where a party to the contract has obtained substituted performance of contract in accordance with the provisions of section 20;
(b) a contract, the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise;
(c) a contract which is so dependent on the personal qualifications of the parties that the court cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms; and
(d) a contract which is in its nature determinable.]
Section 14, The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Act 47 of 1963).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Sushil Kumar Agarwal v. Meenakshi Sadhu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-12.pdf 2018-10-09. CA 1129/2012. D.Y. Chandrachud. DATE-CHECK false positive (leave 12-01-2012 / Calcutta HC 18-02-2009 / agreement 14-04-1992 in footnotes and facts); body is the named reportable. Isolates SRA 14(3)(c): courts do not ordinarily specifically enforce a contract to build unless the work is precisely described, compensation is inadequate, and the defendant obtained possession under the contract; a development agreement that creates an interest in land may still be specifically enforced, but a construction-only agreement with no interest in land and vague specifications (‘first class materials’, ‘etc.’) is not. Map specific-relief-act 14 cited only. Do not pad SRA 10/16 (already filled).
On this section: SRA 14(3)(c) does not bar a developer’s suit where the development agreement creates an interest in land, but a vague construction-only contract with no such interest is not specifically enforceable (Sushil Kumar Agarwal). Do not pad SRA 10/16 (already filled).
-
Tata Industries Limited vs Cyrus Investments Pvt. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The removal of a Director from office, even if carried out in a manner that may be questioned on procedural grounds, cannot be termed as oppressive or prejudicial conduct under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, unless it is part of a larger design to oppress or prejudice the interests of some members. The invocation of the 'just and equitable' clause for winding up requires either a functional deadlock or an irretrievable breakdown of trust and confidence in a quasi-partnership relationship. The affirmative voting rights of Directors nominated by institutional shareholders holding majority stakes are valid and do not constitute oppressive conduct. The Tribunal cannot grant reliefs not sought by the petitioners or not permitted under law, including reinstatement of a director after the expiry of his tenure. The conversion of a company from public to private status is valid if the company satisfies the statutory criteria for being classified as a private company, and the Tribunal cannot interfere with such conversion on the ground of lack of probity without establishing actual oppressive or prejudicial conduct.
On this section: Contracts of personal services not specifically enforceable. The Court held that reinstatement of a director cannot be ordered as it would violate this principle.
-
The Maharashtra State Coop. Housing. Fin. C vs Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Service disputes between employees of a cooperative society and the society as employer do not fall within the scope of disputes cognizable by a Cooperative Court established under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960, as such disputes do not touch upon the constitution, elections, management or business of the cooperative society. Although the Cooperative Court functions as a substitute for the civil court, being a creature of statute, it possesses only those powers explicitly granted by the statute and cannot assume all powers of the civil court. An employee of a cooperative society who cannot be characterized as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, who is not a public servant, and whose employer is not a statutory body with mandatory employment obligations, cannot claim reinstatement relief. Such an employee's sole remedy is to file a civil suit seeking a declaration of wrongful termination and damages, subject to applicable limitation periods.
On this section: Cited for the principle that contracts of personal services are not enforceable, which forms the foundation for the rule that reinstatement cannot be granted
-
Rattan Lal (d) Thr. Lrs vs S. N. Bhalla
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a party invoking a termination clause in a contract (such as Clause 9 in an agreement to sell) has not made serious and conscientious efforts to fulfill their primary obligations under the contract, they cannot take advantage of the termination clause to escape performance. A party's passive receipt of refunded earnest money 'without prejudice' to their rights does not constitute acceptance of contract termination. The acceptance of readiness and willingness to perform must be judged by the totality of conduct including efforts to assist in obtaining necessary governmental clearances, and not merely by the timing of filing suit within limitation period. Where specific performance is rendered impractical due to passage of time and changed circumstances (such as property value escalation), the court may exercise equitable discretion to award monetary compensation instead, thereby vindicating the rights of the party ready and willing to perform while acknowledging practical realities.
On this section: High Court held that a contract determinable by its nature is incapable of specific enforcement; Supreme Court examined but distinguished, holding that Clause 9 cannot be used as escape route by defaulting party
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Ltd. and Others[5]( page-7-0) , submitted that there is no reason to interfere with the direction of the trial court which directs that if the plaintiff desires to get the specific performance, the same shall be done at the prevalent market rate. He further submitted that the suit itself was not tenable in view of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 13. Section 41 of the Punjab Act reads thus: " 41. Second appeals — (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court on any of the following grounds, namely: > (a) the decision being contrary to …
-
… In the present case, the appellant is availing of the services of the Corporate Debtor, to which Section 14 has no application; - (ii) As a result of the impugned order, the Facilities Agreement, which is a determinable contract has become a non-terminable contract, overlooking the mandate of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act 1963; - (iii) The termination notice was not issued to the Corporate Debtor because it was undergoing CIRP but was on account of the material breaches of the agreement. Multiple opportunities were given to the Corporate Debtor to remedy the breaches before the termination notice was …
Questions about Section 14
What have the courts held on Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act?
Sushil Kumar Agarwal v. Meenakshi Sadhu (09 Oct 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: SRA 14(3)(c) does not bar a developer’s suit where the development agreement creates an interest in land, but a vague construction-only contract with no such interest is not specifically enforceable (Sushil Kumar Agarwal). Do not pad SRA 10/16 (already filled). Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2012 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Specific Relief Act 14, section 14 Specific Relief Act, section 14 of the Specific Relief Act. People searching for it also type specific relief act section 14a and 14 d specific relief act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sushil Kumar Agarwal v. Meenakshi Sadhu (09 Oct 2018).
What should I read with Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 20 (Substituted performance of contract), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When did Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act come into force?
Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, cited as Specific Relief Act 14, came into force on 01 Mar 1964, having been enacted on 13 Dec 1963. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 12. Specific performance of part of contract391 words
- 28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed382 words
- 15. Who may obtain specific performance330 words
- 13. Rights of purchaser or lessee against person with no title or imperfect title309 words
- 26. When instrument may be rectified292 words
- 20. Substituted performance of contract269 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.