The agreement by and between the parties hereto is an oral one. What are the terms and conditions of such agreement are not known. The parties only admit that the respondent was to receive a sum of Rs.3 lakhs towards the carriage charges from the petitioner for re-transmitting its channel. It is, however, a common law principle that ordinarily an unwilling person cannot be thrust with a contract of doing something if in relation thereto there does not exist any negative covenant. No such covenant has been brought to our notice. There is also nothing on record to show that in the event of breach of contract on the part of the respondent, the petitioner can enforce the contract. As the arrangement between the parties is an oral one, indisputably, no period is fixed therefor. The contract, therefore, could be terminated at the instance of the parties on reasonable notice. The petitioner therefor was entitled to 21 days notice as is provided under clause 4.2 of the Regulations. However, the petitioner itself has prayed for a decree for damages. Furthermore, the quantum of damages suffered by the petitioner for the alleged breach of the contract on the part of the respondent would be a matter, which can be gone into at the trial of petition. Having regard to the principles contained in Section 14(1)(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a contract, the breach of which may result in payment of damages would not be specifically enforced. If the contract cannot be specifically enforced, Section 41(1)(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 also prohibits grant of an injunction. In view the aforementioned provisions, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where an interim order of injunction, as has been prayed for by the petitioner, should be granted.
