Determining Determinability: the Good & the Commercially Reasonable

Abstract This article addresses the contested interpretation of ‘determinable in nature’ under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 of India, as amended in 2018 to prioritise specific performance over damages. It critiques the approach of the Delhi High Court, which broadly excludes all private commercial contracts from specific enforcement, by erroneously expanding the scope of ‘determinable in nature’. This reading, as held in Rajasthan Breweries, is argued to misinterpret precedent and ignore the statutory shift towards specific performance. In contrast, the Kerala and Madras High Courts have adopted a narrower interpretation, limiting determinability to contracts terminable without cause. Defending this, the article argues that Section 14(d) must be interpreted in light of both legislative purpose and commercial realities, proposing a two-stage framework. First, examining contractual intention through termination clauses; second, applying principles of good faith and commercial reasonableness. This aligns with the Amendment’s purpose, while restoring doctrinal coherence.