Injunction to perform negative agreement
Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with injunction to perform negative agreement. Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (e) of section 41, where a contract comprises an affirmative agreement to do a certain act, coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, not to do a certain act, the circumstance that the court is unable to compel specific performance of the aff The Act came into force on 01 Mar 1964.
Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (e) of section 41, where a contract comprises an affirmative agreement to do a certain act, coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, not to do a certain act, the circumstance that the court is unable to compel specific performance of the affirmative agreement shall not preclude it from granting an injunction to perform the negative agreement:
Provided that the plaintiff has not failed to perform the contract so far as it is binding on him.
Section 42, 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
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.
-
Suresh Dhanuka vs Sunita Mohapatra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Deed of Assignment transferring intellectual property rights (specifically, 50% ownership of a trade mark) 'absolutely and forever' cannot be unilaterally revoked by the assignor upon termination of the underlying business agreement. A negative covenant in such a Deed (prohibiting use or registration of the trade mark except through the assignee) is enforceable through injunction under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and does not violate Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, because it restrains use of specific intellectual property, not the carrying on of trade or business. An interim order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, maintaining status quo pending arbitration is justified and within the jurisdiction of the District Court to protect the rights of both parties.
On this section: Provides that notwithstanding Section 41(e), where a contract comprises an affirmative agreement coupled with a negative agreement (express or implied), the Court can grant an injunction to enforce the negative covenant even if specific performance of the affirmative agreement cannot be compelled. The Court held that Section 42 was properly invoked to enforce the negative covenant in the Deed of Assignment prohibiting use of the trade mark except through the Appellant.
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.
-
… As a matter of fact, this Court in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, 1959 SCR 1111 clarified that the predecessor to section 35 of the 1963 Act, namely, section 43 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, made it clear that both sections 42 and 43 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 go together and refer only to an action that is in personam. This was felicitously stated by this Court as follows: > " ... Sections 42 and 43, as indicated above, go together, and are meant to be coextensive in their operation. That being so, a declaratory judgment in …
-
… Subsequently, a compromise decree was executed between the defendants and the Hindu Religious Endowments Board which inter alia declared the temple properties as the personal property of the defendants. The plaintiffs sought a declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 that the provision of the compromise decree stating that the temple properties were the absolute personal properties of the defendant was not binding on the temple. The defendants resisted this contention on the ground that the plaintiffs had no legal interest in the temple or temple …
-
… Subsequently, a compromise decree was executed between the defendants and the Hindu Religious Endowments Board which inter alia declared the temple properties as the personal property of the defendants. The plaintiffs sought a declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 that the provision of the compromise decree stating that the temple properties were the absolute personal properties of the defendant was not binding on the temple. The defendants resisted this contention on the ground that the plaintiffs had no legal interest in the temple or temple …
Questions about Section 42
What have the courts held on Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act?
Suresh Dhanuka vs Sunita Mohapatra (02 Dec 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Provides that notwithstanding Section 41(e), where a contract comprises an affirmative agreement coupled with a negative agreement (express or implied), the Court can grant an injunction to enforce the negative covenant even if specific performance of the affirmative agreement cannot be compelled. The Court held that Section 42 was properly invoked to enforce the negative covenant in the Deed of Assignment prohibiting use of the trade mark except through the Appellant.
How do I find court cases under Section 42 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 42, section 42 Specific Relief Act, section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. People searching for it also type specific relief act 1877 section 42 and specific relief act section 36 to 42. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with Suresh Dhanuka vs Sunita Mohapatra (02 Dec 2011).
What should I read with Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 41 (Injunction when refused), so none of them can safely be read on its own.
When did Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act come into force?
Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, cited as Specific Relief Act 42, 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.