The enforceability of contracts of personal service has long been a contentious issue in legal discourse. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), particularly Section 14, provides explicit provisions about the non-enforceability of such contracts. This article examines a recent case involving an employee (defendant no.1) and his former employer (the plaintiff), focusing on the plaintiff's request for a perpetual and mandatory injunction to prevent the misuse of confidential and proprietary information and to enforce specific performance related to personal services.

Case Overview:
In the present case, the plaintiff sought to prevent defendant no.1, a former employee, from using or disclosing confidential and proprietary information for personal gain. Defendant no.1, who was employed as a software engineer specializing in AI, had resigned from his position after a notice period of 90 days. The plaintiff contended that the defendant, as a trustee of the work product developed during his employment, was obliged to transfer all relevant knowledge to the company.

The plaintiff argued that the rapid development of AI necessitated urgent relief, invoking Section 8 of the Act to assert that monetary compensation would be inadequate without the transfer of the work product knowledge. The defendant, however, claimed to have already fulfilled all exit formalities and transferred necessary knowledge, further arguing that the plaintiff's request was essentially an attempt to enforce a contract of personal service, which is not permissible under Section 14 of the Act.

Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:
This section states that the court shall presume that monetary compensation is insufficient where the subject matter of the contract is of such a nature that it cannot be readily procured.

Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:
This section explicitly lists contracts that cannot be specifically enforced, including:

• Contracts dependent on personal qualifications or volition.
• Contracts that are in their nature determinable.
• Contracts for the performance of continuous duties which the court cannot supervise.
• Contracts which, by their nature, are not capable of specific performance.

Court's Analysis and Decision:
The court refused to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff. It emphasized that the defendant had already cooperated and transferred all pertinent knowledge to the current employees of the plaintiff-company. The court noted that enforcing a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to perform additional tasks would essentially compel specific performance of a contract of personal service, which is barred under Section 14 of the Act.

The plaintiff's assertion that the request did not involve rejoining the service but merely a visit for knowledge transfer was also rejected. The court held that no employee could be compelled to engage with another party against their will, underscoring that such compulsion is prohibited by Section 14(c) of the Act.

Implications and Conclusion:
This case reaffirms the principle that contracts of personal service cannot be specifically enforced, aligning with the legislative intent of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court's decision underscores the importance of respecting the personal volition and qualifications involved in such contracts, highlighting the limitations on judicial intervention in matters where personal service is concerned.

Author's Note:
The prohibition against the specific enforcement of personal service contracts is rooted in the need to preserve individual freedom and the impracticality of supervising personal duties. This case serves as a significant reminder for employers to structure their employment agreements and proprietary information protections within the legal framework that recognizes these limitations. Ensuring comprehensive exit procedures and clear terms regarding knowledge transfer can mitigate potential disputes, avoiding reliance on judicial enforcement which may not always be feasible.

Case Citation: Nayan India Science and Technology pvt. Ltd. Vs Tushar Mourya: 08.07.2024: CS Comm 526 of,2024:2024:DHC:5005:Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta. H.J.

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539