The Unchanging Nature Of Determinable Contracts*


The Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides the legal mechanism for contract enforcement in India. The law, as it stands today, proceeds on the footing that the party suffering from breach of a contract is entitled to compensation for loss and consequential damages and it is rare for the courts to enforce specific performance of the contract in favour of such a party.

Taking into account the dismal rating of India under “Enforcing Contracts” at the Ease of Doing Business Report compiled by the World Bank, the Legislature has decided to improve and amend the statutory framework through The Specific Relief (Amendment) Bill, 2017. The Amendment seeks to make specific performance a norm rather than an exception by taking away the discretionary powers of the court to allow specific performance. As per the amendment, the court shall allow specific performance except under certain circumstances. One of the circumstances where no specific performance of the contract may be allowed is when a contract is of a determinable nature.

Determinable Nature of a Contract

The word, “Determinable”, in legal parlance means “liable to end upon the happening of a contingency; terminable”2. Thus, any contract which provides for the termination of the same at the instance of one of the parties and at the occurrence or non-occurrence of a certain event is determinable in nature.

The difficulty in granting specific performance of a contract containing a termination clause is that the party against whom the specific performance is decreed may terminate the contract and thus, such an order would cease to be merely academic in nature considering the impending termination of the contract. Of course, the party suffering from breach of contract may claim damages for breach of contract but no recourse towards enforcing specific performance may lie in such cases.

A contract may be terminated as a result of cause, convenience or expiry of term or other events agreed upon between the parties. If a contract does not provide for unilateral termination of agreement, such an agreement cannot be said to be determinable.3


The leading case law on the point of determinable contracts is Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service & Ors.4. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that since the Agreement between the parties was of a revocable nature, the only relief available to the aggrieved party was that of claiming damages and no specific performance of the contract could be granted in such cases.

In Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. v. The Stroh Brewery Company5, while deciding an Appeal against an order declining ad-interim temporary injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Delhi High Court held that it would be bad in the eyes of law to grant an injunction where the contract was by its very nature, determinable. The said interpretation was laid down by reading Section 14 (i)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in conjunction with Section 41 of the Act.

Building upon the exposition in Amritsar Gas Service, in Turnaround Logistics (P) Ltd. v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. and Ors.6, a division bench of the Delhi High Court held that contracts of a terminable nature and including voidable contracts cannot be specifically enforced. Further, it is now an established principle7 that an injunction cannot be granted in order to restrain a party from determining a contract.


Although the very nature of contract enforcement is being sought to be changed through the passage of The Specific Relief (Amendment) Bill, 2017, the law with regards to the contracts of determinable nature remains unaltered. Since the specific performance of contracts containing termination clauses remain unenforceable, the parties entering into a contract might prefer to have a higher threshold for liquidated damages in order to discourage one of the parties from declining to perform its obligations. In the absence of enforcement of specific performance under such contracts, the only recourse available to the aggrieved party remains damages.


* Authored by Renjith Nair, Associate, Dhaval Vussonji & Associates and contributed by Sonam Mhatre, Associate Partner, Dhaval Vussonji & Associates.

2 Black’s Law Dictionary 544 (10th ed. 2014)

3 Om Prakash Malik v. Virendra Kumar Malik, 2016 SCC 3238

4 (1991) 1 SCC 533

5 AIR 2000 Delhi 450

6 MANU/DE/8741/2006

7 Ramchandra Tanwar v. Ram Rakhmal Amichand AIR 1971 Raj 292; Mittal Services v. Escotel Mobile Communication Ltd. AIR 2003 Del 410

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Media Coverage

About Dhaval Vussonji

Ask a question

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Legal Disclaimer

User Acknowledgement

By proceeding further and clicking on the “AGREE” button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about Dhaval Vussonji & Associates for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from Dhaval Vussonji & Associates or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this knowledgesite. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below.


This knowledgesite ( is a resource for informational purposes only and is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Dhaval Vussonji & Associates (DVA) does not warrant that the information contained on this knowledgesite is accurate or complete, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause.

DVA further assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the information contained on this knowledgesite, nor does it offer a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The owner of this knowledgesite does not intend links from this site to other internet knowledgesites to be referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with the linked entities. DVA is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties about, the contents of Web sites to which links may be provided from this Web site.

This knowledgesite is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation and the contents of the knowledgesite should not be construed as legal advice. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship and should not rely on information provided herein and should always seek the advice of competent counsel licensed to practice in the relevant country/state. Transmission, receipt or use of this knowledgesite does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this knowledgesite should act, or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this site.

Furthermore, the owner of this knowledgesite does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this knowledgesite or in a country/state where this knowledgesite fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of Internet e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending email over the Internet.