Section 42 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 42 says that where a contract has an affirmative agreement to do a certain act, coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, not to do a certain act, the fact that the court cannot compel specific performance of the affirmative agreement does not stop it from granting an injunction to perform the negative agreement. The plaintiff must not have failed to perform the contract so far as it is binding on him.
This article follows the consolidated text of the Act consulted (amendments shown up to Act 18 of 2018). Later amendments should be checked before you rely on any provision.
Notwithstanding clause (e) of section 41, where a contract has an affirmative agreement to do a certain act, coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, not to do a certain act, the court may grant an injunction to perform the negative agreement even though it is unable to compel specific performance of the affirmative agreement. The proviso: the plaintiff must not have failed to perform the contract so far as it is binding on him.
The text
"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."
Why the opening words matter
Clause (e) of section 41 says an injunction cannot be granted "to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically enforced". Section 42 begins by overriding that clause, "Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (e) of section 41". It creates an exception for a particular kind of contract. The kinds of contract that cannot be specifically enforced are listed in section 14; see our post on section 14.
If you are drafting or relying on a covenant that restrains a person from doing something, a short consultation on agreement drafting will show whether the clause is framed so that this section can help.
Reading the section part by part
"where a contract comprises an affirmative agreement to do a certain act". The contract contains a promise to do something, the affirmative agreement.
"coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, not to do a certain act". The same contract also contains a promise not to do something. That negative promise may be written ("express") or may be inferred from the contract ("implied").
"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". Even if the court cannot order the affirmative promise to be performed, that fact alone does not stop it from granting an injunction to hold the other party to the negative promise. The word is "preclude": the inability to compel the affirmative promise is not a bar. The section does not say the injunction must be granted; it says the court is not precluded. The other provisions, including the court's discretion, remain.
An invented example: Aarav, a performer, signs a contract with Studio Nine to perform exclusively for it for two years (affirmative agreement), and promises not to perform for any rival studio during that time (negative agreement). The court cannot compel Aarav to perform, because such personal services are of a kind the court cannot supervise or enforce. Under section 42, that inability does not stop the court from granting an injunction to hold Aarav to the negative promise, provided Studio Nine has itself performed what it was bound to perform. For the Contract Act's position on agreements in restraint of trade, see our post on non-compete agreement validity under section 27 of the Indian Contract Act. That section number belongs to the Contract Act, and the validity of the restraint is a separate question that this Act does not answer.
The proviso: the plaintiff's own performance
"Provided that the plaintiff has not failed to perform the contract so far as it is binding on him."
The injunction is available only to a plaintiff who has not failed to perform the contract so far as it is binding on him. A plaintiff who is in breach of his own obligations cannot use section 42. This echoes the requirements on the plaintiff in section 16 for specific performance, and the conduct bar in section 41(i).
| Element | Text |
|---|---|
| Overrides | Clause (e) of section 41 |
| Contract contains | An affirmative agreement coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied |
| Court's inability | Unable to compel specific performance of the affirmative agreement |
| Effect | Does not preclude an injunction to perform the negative agreement |
| Proviso | Plaintiff has not failed to perform the contract so far as it binds him |
Repealed sections 43 and 44
Sections 43 and 44 do not carry text in the Act consulted. The print shows a row of asterisks, and a footnote says: "Sections 43 and 44 rep. by the Repealing and Amending Act, 1974 (56 of 1974), s. 2 and the First Schedule (w.e.f. 20-12-1974)." The Act as consulted ends with those repealed numbers and then the Schedule, which is explained in our article on the Schedule to the Specific Relief Act.
How section 42 fits with the rest of the injunction scheme
Perpetual injunctions are dealt with in section 38: where the obligation arises from contract, the court is guided by Chapter II. Mandatory injunctions are in section 39. Section 42 is the bridge for negative promises in contracts that cannot be specifically enforced as to their affirmative side. For the two kinds of injunction, temporary and perpetual, see sections 36-37.
Practical points
When drafting, state the negative covenant separately and clearly, so that it is express. Do not rely on implication if you can avoid it. Keep up your own performance of the contract; the proviso asks about it. Check separately whether the restraint is valid in law, which is a question for the law of contract. The Act prints no period in section 42; for the time to sue see the Limitation Act article on torts with a three-year period, including trespass, infringement and wrongful injunction and check the current law.
Need help with a restraint clause in a contract?
How a negative covenant is worded and how the contract is performed decide whether an injunction can follow. You can ask our team about agreement drafting before you sign, or when you plan to rely on the clause.
Key takeaways
- Section 42 applies notwithstanding clause (e) of section 41.
- It covers a contract with an affirmative agreement coupled with an express or implied negative agreement.
- The court's inability to compel the affirmative agreement does not preclude an injunction to perform the negative agreement.
- The plaintiff must not have failed to perform the contract so far as it is binding on him.
- Sections 43 and 44 are repealed; the text consulted prints only asterisks and a footnote.
Read next
- Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963: injunction, when refused
- Sections 39-40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963: mandatory injunction and damages in lieu of injunction
- The Schedule to the Specific Relief Act, 1963: infrastructure projects and sub-sectors
Disclaimer: Based on a consolidated text of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 showing amendments up to the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 (in force from 1 October 2018), as consulted on 2 October 2026. Later amendments, notifications under the Act and the law of limitation should be checked. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.