Mandatory and Negative Injunctions under the Specific Relief Act, 1963- A Critical Study of Sections 39 and 42 with Judicial Interpretation:

Mandatory and Negative Injunctions under the Specific Relief Act, 1963

- A Critical Study of Sections 39 and 42 with Judicial Interpretation:

A. Relevant provisions:

39. Mandatory injunctions.—When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts.

42. 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 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.

B. Introduction:

Injunctions form the backbone of equitable remedies under Indian civil jurisprudence. While prohibitory injunctions merely restrain wrongful acts, mandatory injunctions and injunctions enforcing negative covenants go a step further by compelling action or enforcing restraint arising out of contractual obligations. Sections 39 and 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 embody this advanced equitable control.

These provisions are not mechanical remedies; they operate in the realm of judicial discretion, equity, enforceability, and fairness. Courts exercise heightened caution while granting them, as they often alter the status quo rather than preserve it.

C. Section 39 – Mandatory Injunction: 

a. Compelling Performance to Prevent Breach of Obligation: 

Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 empowers courts to grant a mandatory injunction where an existing obligation, whether statutory, contractual, or equitable, cannot be effectively protected by mere restraint. In such cases, the court may compel the active performance of certain acts, provided that such performance is necessary to prevent the breach complained of and that the acts sought to be enforced are capable of execution under judicial supervision.

b. Nature and Scope

A mandatory injunction directs a party to undo a wrongful act or perform a positive obligation, such as the demolition of an illegal structure, restoration of possession, removal of encroachments, or reinstatement of access, utilities, or legally protected rights. Unlike prohibitory injunctions, which merely restrain future conduct, a mandatory injunction is restorative and corrective in nature, as it seeks to reverse the effects of an existing breach and often results in the alteration or disruption of the prevailing factual position in order to uphold justice and equity.

c. Judicial Principles Governing Section 39

While considering the grant of a mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Indian courts have consistently prescribed stringent judicial standards. The plaintiff must establish a strong prima facie case by demonstrating a clear, definite, and undisputed legal right, as opposed to a merely arguable or speculative claim. Given the intrusive nature of mandatory relief, courts insist upon a higher degree of proof than that required for prohibitory injunctions, particularly at the interlocutory stage. Additionally, the plaintiff must show that refusal of relief would result in irreparable injury, for which monetary compensation would be inadequate and non-intervention would perpetuate injustice. Finally, the balance of convenience must decisively favour the plaintiff, with the court carefully assessing whether compelling performance would cause greater hardship than the denial of such relief.

d. Key Judicial Precedents

The judicial approach to mandatory injunctions under Section 39 has been authoritatively shaped by landmark decisions of the Supreme Court. In Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden, (1990) 2 SCC 117, the Court held that mandatory injunctions at the interlocutory stage should be granted only in clear and exceptional cases, where failure to do so would result in the continuance of injustice. Similarly, in Kishoresinh Ratansinh Jadeja v. Maruti Corp, (2009) 11 SCC 229, the Supreme Court emphasized that mandatory injunctions inherently disturb the existing status quo and, therefore, must be granted only after cautious and rigorous judicial scrutiny.

e. Practical Illustration

Where a builder, after completion of construction, unlawfully blocks a legally sanctioned access road, the grant of a mere prohibitory injunction would be ineffective, as the wrongful act has already been completed. In such circumstances, only a mandatory injunction directing the removal of the obstruction can meaningfully restore the plaintiff’s lawful right of access and effectively prevent the continuance of the breach.

C. Section 42 – Injunction to Perform a Negative Agreement

a. Enforcing Restraint Even When Positive Performance Is Impossible, Statutory Philosophy:

Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 carves out a significant exception to Section 41(e), which generally bars the grant of injunctions to enforce contracts that are not specifically enforceable. This provision empowers courts to enforce the negative component of a contract even where the affirmative or positive obligations cannot be specifically enforced, provided that there exists an express or implied negative covenant and that the plaintiff has performed, or is ready and willing to perform, the contractual obligations binding upon him.

b. Understanding Affirmative and Negative Covenants

A contract may comprise two distinct categories of obligations: affirmative covenants, which require a party to perform or do a particular act, and negative covenants, which restrain a party from doing a specified act. While affirmative obligations impose a duty of positive performance, negative obligations operate as contractual restraints, the breach of which may be prevented through injunctive relief.

c. Example

Where an employee enters into a contract agreeing to work exclusively for Company A and undertaking not to engage with any competing entity during the subsistence of the contract, the court cannot compel the employee to render personal service, as enforcement of affirmative obligations is barred. However, the court may validly enforce the negative covenant by restraining the employee from working for competitors during the contractual period, thereby giving effect to the contractual restraint without violating principles governing specific performance.

d. Legal Rationale

While the law upholds personal liberty and freedom of contract, it simultaneously seeks to prevent unjust enrichment, protect commercial confidence, and preserve contractual discipline. Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 embodies this balance by ensuring that a party cannot evade or defeat negative contractual obligations merely because the affirmative aspects of the contract are incapable of specific enforcement.

e. Conditions for Grant under Section 42

For the grant of an injunction under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the court must be satisfied that there exists a valid and subsisting contract containing a negative covenant, whether express or implied. The plaintiff must further demonstrate due performance or readiness and willingness to perform the contractual obligations binding upon him. Additionally, the restraint sought to be enforced must be reasonable and consistent with the principles embodied in Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the plaintiff must approach the court with clean hands, exhibiting equitable and bona fide conduct throughout.

f. Judicial Interpretation

The scope and enforceability of negative covenants under Section 42 have been authoritatively clarified by the Supreme Court in several landmark decisions. In Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., (1995) 5 SCC 545, the Court upheld the enforcement of negative covenants during the subsistence of a contract, holding that such enforcement does not amount to an unlawful restraint of trade. Similarly, in Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co., AIR 1967 SC 1098, the Supreme Court affirmed that negative covenants operative during the period of employment are valid and enforceable, provided they are reasonable and confined to the duration of the contract.

g. Limits and Safeguards

While enforcing negative covenants under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, courts remain vigilant to safeguard personal liberty and public interest. Accordingly, courts will not enforce unreasonable restraints, post-termination covenants lacking adequate justification, or contractual clauses that are opposed to public policy or that unduly infringe personal freedom, even if such clauses are couched as negative agreements.

h. Comparative Insight: Section 39 vs Section 42

While both Sections 39 and 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deal with injunctive relief, they operate in distinct legal spheres. Section 39 concerns mandatory injunctions, which compel the performance of positive acts to remedy or prevent the breach of an obligation and, owing to their intrusive nature, are granted with very high judicial caution, particularly at the interim stage where such relief is rare. In contrast, Section 42 pertains to prohibitory injunctions enforcing negative covenants, which restrain a party from committing a contractual breach and are based on the existence of a contractual covenant. As these injunctions preserve rather than disturb the status quo, courts exercise a comparatively lower—though still significant—degree of caution, and interim relief is more commonly granted.

D. Conclusion

Sections 39 and 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 represent the highest form of equitable intervention available to civil courts. These provisions underscore the judiciary’s authority not merely to restrain unlawful conduct, but to actively correct injustice and enforce contractual discipline, while maintaining a careful balance between personal liberty, enforceability of obligations, and principles of fairness. For litigators, invocation of these remedies demands precision in pleadings, clarity of legal rights, and a robust factual foundation. For courts, they remain remedies of last resort, to be exercised sparingly yet decisively, where the ends of justice so require.

23:05

24th Margashirsh 14234 

English Date 

15th December 2025 

Authored by: RG 🦅

+91 9823044282