JUDGMENT : HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 A&C Act , seeking the following reliefs: “….. A. Grant an ad-interim injunction on the operation and effect of the Termination Notice dated 02.01.2026 issued by the Respondents, and restrain the Respondents from giving effect to the same or terminating the Radiology Services Agreement dated 02.05.2016 (as amended) in any manner pending final adjudication of the disputes through arbitration; B. Direct the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the operation, management, and functioning of the Radiology Department at the Respondent No. 1 Hospital under the Agreement, including uninterrupted access and services by the Petitioner; C. Grant a prohibitory ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents, assigns, or any persons claiming through them, from creating any third-party rights or interests in the Radiology Department, premises, equipment, or services covered under the Agreement; D. Grant a prohibitory ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents from installing any radiology equipment, or rendering such services within the premises covered under the Agreement; E. Direct the Respondents to make the payments to the Petitioner as per the timeline agreed in the Agreement in a transparent and timely manner. F. Restrain the Respondents from transferring, removing, alienating, or otherwise dealing with any machinery, equipment, or assets installed and operated by the Petitioner in the Radiology Department at the Respondent No. 1 Hospital. G. Grant any other order(s) that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.” BRIEF FACTS: 2. The Petitioner is a company duly incorporated in India under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at K-18 Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi, India. Respondent No. 1 is a company engaged in the healthcare sector, having its registered office at 3, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Link House, New Delhi. Respondent No. 2 1 A&C Act is the Chief Executive Officer of Respondent No.1. 3. Respondent No. 1 is a company engaged in the healthcare sector, having its registered office at 3, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Link House, New Delhi. Respondent No. 2 1 A&C Act is the Chief Executive Officer of Respondent No.1. 3. On 02.05.2016, the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 executed a Radiology Services Agreement , Agreement for a period of fifteen (15) years, whereunder the Petitioner was entrusted with the responsibility of establishing, managing and operating the Radiology Department at the hospital premises of Respondent No.1 and was required, inter alia, to render radiology services in a competent and uninterrupted manner in compliance with applicable laws, to ensure that the equipment installed met the prescribed standards, and to obtain and maintain the requisite statutory permits and licences. 4. The Agreement was to remain in force until 02.05.2031, subject to termination in accordance with Clause 10 thereof. Clause 10 provides for termination in specified contingencies, including termination on account of a material breach, subject to issuance of written notice and the grant of a cure period of forty-five (45) days. Clause 13 of the Agreement contains the dispute resolution mechanism, requiring the parties to first attempt resolution through mutual discussions and, failing such resolution, to refer the disputes to arbitration. 5. It is stated that after such an arrangement had been continuing for several years, a meeting was convened between the representatives of the parties. In the course of the said meeting, Respondent No.1 conveyed its intention to commence and operate the Radiology Department independently with effect from 01.04.2026. 6. Thereafter, in December 2025, communications were exchanged between the parties concerning various items of radiological equipment installed in the Radiology Department, including matters relating to commissioning and de-commissioning of equipment, servicing and maintenance, and compliance with the provisions of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 , PC-PNDT Act and the regulatory framework under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 , Atomic Energy Act 7. Pursuant to this, on 02.01.2026, Respondent No.1 issued a Termination Notice , Impugned Termination Notice alleging breaches of contractual and statutory obligations and stating that the Agreement would stand terminated with effect from 02.02.2026. 8. Pursuant to this, on 02.01.2026, Respondent No.1 issued a Termination Notice , Impugned Termination Notice alleging breaches of contractual and statutory obligations and stating that the Agreement would stand terminated with effect from 02.02.2026. 8. The Petitioner, vide its reply dated 08.01.2026 to the Impugned Termination Notice, disputed the validity of said Notice, contending that the Agreement was binding for a fixed tenure of fifteen years and could be terminated only in the event of a contractual breach or by mutual consent of the parties, neither of which had arisen. 9. Alleging violations of contractual obligations under the abovementioned Agreement, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition seeking urgent interim measures, including ad-interim injunctions restraining the operation and effect of the Impugned Termination Notice, maintenance of status quo with respect to the Radiology Department, and a prohibitory ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents from creating any third-party rights or installing any radiology equipment at the Hospital. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES: 10. Mr. Rajeev K. Virmani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, would contend that the prayers sought in the present petition are statutorily barred in view of Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 , SRA , as it states that a contract which is in its nature determinable cannot be specifically enforced. It would be submitted that Clause 10 of the Agreement renders the Agreement as one that is determinable in nature. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents, in furtherance of the aforesaid submission with regard to the determinable nature of the Agreement, would place reliance on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in National Highways Authority of India v. HK Toll Road Pvt. Ltd . , 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2376 to contend that a contract which provides for termination upon the occurrence of specified contingencies would be regarded as determinable in nature, and once a contract is found to be determinable, an injunction staying such termination would, in effect, amount to enforcement or restoration of the contract, which is impermissible in law. 12. , 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2376 to contend that a contract which provides for termination upon the occurrence of specified contingencies would be regarded as determinable in nature, and once a contract is found to be determinable, an injunction staying such termination would, in effect, amount to enforcement or restoration of the contract, which is impermissible in law. 12. Learned Senior Counsel would further place reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service , (1991) 1 SCC 533 and of this Court in Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. v. Stroh Brewery Co , 2000 SCC OnLine Del 481 , to submit that where a contract is determinable, even if the termination is ultimately found to be illegal, the remedy available to the aggrieved party is to seek compensation for the wrongful termination and not in specific performance of the agreement as between the parties. It would therefore be contended that the present petition, insofar as it seeks to restrain or nullify the termination and thereby continue the Agreement, is legally untenable. 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents would further submit that, in any event, the reliefs sought in the present petition are also barred under Section 14(b) of the SRA inasmuch as the Agreement embodies continuing and reciprocal obligations requiring sustained performance over a period of time. Grant of the reliefs prayed for would necessarily involve constant judicial supervision of such performance, which is impermissible in law. A contract involving continuous duties that the Court cannot supervise is not specifically enforceable. 14. Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the present petition does not disclose the complete and correct factual matrix leading to the issuance of the Impugned Termination Notice. It would be submitted that the termination was preceded by and founded upon multiple and serious breaches on the part of the Petitioner, inter alia, non-compliance with statutory requirements under the PC-PNDT Act and the regulatory framework under the Atomic Energy Act, operation and continued use of equipment which had reached end-of-life and end-of-support status, failure to obtain or update requisite registrations and endorsements in respect of installation and transfer of equipment, engagement of unauthorised service agencies, and disruption of uninterrupted radiology services owing to the non-functioning of critical equipment. 15. 15. Learned Senior Counsel would thus contend that these violations, taken cumulatively, constituted breaches going to the root of the Agreement and justified the action taken by Respondent No.1. 16. Per contra, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Respondents’ reliance on Section 14(d) of the SRA is wholly misconceived. It would be contended that not every contract containing a termination clause is determinable in nature, and to bolster this argument, reliance would be placed by the learned Senior Counsel, on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.S. Manjunath and Others v. Moorasavirappa alias Muttanna Chennappa Batil ,2025 SCC OnLine SC 2378 , particularly paragraphs 62, 64 and 65, wherein the Apex Court has clarified that the determinability of a contract must be assessed with reference to its terms and the nature of rights and obligations flowing therefrom. 17. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would lay particular emphasis on paragraph 66 read with paragraphs 47 to 51 of the said judgment to submit that a contract is “in its nature determinable” only where it is terminable at the will of a party, without reference to any breach or contingency. The Agreement in the present case confers no such unilateral or no-fault right of termination. Termination is expressly conditioned upon the existence of a material breach and compliance with the contractual cure mechanism. It would therefore be contended that, so long as the Petitioner was ready and willing to perform and no established default existed, the Agreement cannot be characterised as inherently determinable so as to attract the bar under Section 14(d) of SRA. 18. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the Respondents’ reliance on Section 14(b) of the SRA is equally misplaced. The interim relief sought does not require this Court to supervise continuous performance or undertake day-to-day monitoring of reciprocal obligations. The Agreement has operated for nearly nine years without judicial oversight, and the Petitioner merely seeks preservation of the existing contractual framework and enforcement of the negative covenants pending arbitration. Such limited protection does not attract the statutory bar under Section 14(b) of the SRA. 19. The Agreement has operated for nearly nine years without judicial oversight, and the Petitioner merely seeks preservation of the existing contractual framework and enforcement of the negative covenants pending arbitration. Such limited protection does not attract the statutory bar under Section 14(b) of the SRA. 19. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the reliance placed on alleged “End-of-Life” communications, temporary downtime of equipment, and supposed irregularities under the PC-PNDT Act and other legal frameworks are wholly misconceived, inasmuch as the equipment remained licensed, duly maintained and compliant, and no adverse order has ever been passed by any competent authority. The allegations, it would be urged, are based on internal audit observations and selective reading of documents, and do not disclose any fundamental violation warranting termination of a long-term commercial contract. 20. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the Impugned Termination Notice is ex facie contrary to the contractual mechanism. Even assuming any breach had occurred, the Respondents were mandatorily required under Clause 10.2(a) to issue a notice granting a cure period of forty-five (45) days. No such cure notice was issued. It would therefore be contended that the termination is arbitrary and in breach of the express terms of the Agreement. 21. It would further be submitted that once the foundational requirement of a contractual cure period is disregarded, the termination cannot be sustained in law, and all consequential steps flowing therefrom would stand vitiated. 22. It would also be contended that the entire premise of the Impugned Termination Notice is that the said breaches are incurable in nature and the same is a unilateral determination without reference to the contractual framework. 23. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the well- established triple test for the grant of an injunction stands satisfied in the present case, with particular emphasis on the irreparable injury that would be caused to the Petitioner in the form of loss of reputation and erosion of goodwill, which are incapable of being adequately compensated by damages or monetary relief and, therefore, necessitate the interference of this Court by way of injunctive protection. ANALYSIS: 24. This Court has heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and, with their able assistance, has carefully perused the paperbook and other material documents placed on record. 25. ANALYSIS: 24. This Court has heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and, with their able assistance, has carefully perused the paperbook and other material documents placed on record. 25. At the outset, this Court notes that it is conscious of the limited compass of its jurisdiction under Section 9 of the A&C Act. The power conferred thereunder is interim and protective in nature, intended to preserve the subject matter of the arbitration and to safeguard the efficacy of the arbitral process. At this stage, the Court is required only to examine whether the well-settled parameters governing the grant of interim relief, namely, the existence of a prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and the likelihood of irreparable injury, stand satisfied for the purposes contemplated under Section 9 of the A&C Act. In ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. , (2022) 1 SCC 712 . , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expounded upon the contours of such jurisdiction in the following terms: “ 88. Applications for interim relief are inherently applications which are required to be disposed of urgently. Interim relief is granted in aid of final relief. The object is to ensure protection of the property being the subject-matter of arbitration and/or otherwise ensure that the arbitration proceedings do not become infructuous and the arbitral award does not become an award on paper, of no real value. 89. The principles for grant of interim relief are (i) good prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience in favour of grant of interim relief and (iii) irreparable injury or loss to the applicant for interim relief. Unless applications for interim measures are decided expeditiously, irreparable injury or prejudice may be caused to the party seeking interim relief. 90. It could, therefore, never have been the legislative intent that even after an application under Section 9 is finally heard, relief would have to be declined and the parties be remitted to their remedy under Section 17. 91. When an application has already been taken up for consideration and is in the process of consideration or has already been considered, the question of examining whether remedy under Section 17 is efficacious or not would not arise. The requirement to conduct the exercise arises only when the application is being entertained and/or taken up for consideration. 91. When an application has already been taken up for consideration and is in the process of consideration or has already been considered, the question of examining whether remedy under Section 17 is efficacious or not would not arise. The requirement to conduct the exercise arises only when the application is being entertained and/or taken up for consideration. As observed above, there could be numerous reasons which render the remedy under Section 17 inefficacious. To cite an example, the different arbitrators constituting an Arbitral Tribunal could be located at far away places and not in a position to assemble immediately. In such a case, an application for urgent interim relief may have to be entertained by the Court under Section 9(1).” (emphasis supplied) 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Essar House Pvt. Ltd. v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. , (2022) 20 SCC 178 , has made some pertinent observations concerning the nature and contours of the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 9 of the A&C Act, which are extracted hereinbelow: “ 48. Section 9 of the Arbitration Act confers wide power on the Court to pass orders securing the amount in dispute in arbitration, whether before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, during the arbitral proceedings or at any time after making of the arbitral award, but before its enforcement in accordance with Section 36 of the Arbitration Act. All that the Court is required to see is, whether the applicant for interim measure has a good prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience is in favour of interim relief as prayed for being granted and whether the applicant has approached the court with reasonable expedition ***** 49. Proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove or dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the realisation of an impending Arbitral Award is not imperative for grant of relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. A strong possibility of diminution of assets would suffice. To assess the balance of convenience, the Court is required to examine and weigh the consequences of refusal of interim relief to the applicant for interim relief in case of success in the proceedings, against the consequence of grant of the interim relief to the opponent in case the proceedings should ultimately fail.” 27. To assess the balance of convenience, the Court is required to examine and weigh the consequences of refusal of interim relief to the applicant for interim relief in case of success in the proceedings, against the consequence of grant of the interim relief to the opponent in case the proceedings should ultimately fail.” 27. The principal controversy in the present case turns upon the question whether the Agreement executed between the parties is “in its nature determinable” within the meaning of the SRA, as contemplated under Section 14 thereof. This Court considers it apposite to reproduce Section 14 of the SRA, which reads as follows: “ 14. Contracts not specifically enforceable. — The following contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely: - (a) where a party to the contract has obtained substituted performance of contract in accordance with the provisions of section 20; (b) a contract, the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise; (c) a contract which is so dependent on the personal qualifications of the parties that the court cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms; and (d) a contract which is in its nature determinable.” 28. Having delineated the statutory contours, it becomes necessary to advert to the termination clause contained in the Agreement, as the issue of determinability must be assessed with reference to the contractual stipulations; accordingly, Clause 10 of the Agreement, which governs termination, is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference: “ 10. TERM & TERMINATION 10.1. This Agreement shall be valid and binding between the Parties commencing on the Effective Date and shall remain in force for a period of 15 years from the Effective Date. It is agreed that three months prior to the expiry of the Term, the Parties shall mutually discuss the possibility of extending/renewing the Term of this Agreement. 10.2. This Agreement shall be valid and binding between the Parties commencing on the Effective Date and shall remain in force for a period of 15 years from the Effective Date. It is agreed that three months prior to the expiry of the Term, the Parties shall mutually discuss the possibility of extending/renewing the Term of this Agreement. 10.2. Notwithstanding anything contained above, this Agreement may be terminated: (a) By either Party forthwith upon written notice to the other Party in the event of a material breach of the provisions, including without limitation the representations and warranties of the Parties of this Agreement by any Party hereof ('"Breaching Party"), which breach has not been remedied by the Breaching Panty within forty five (45) days of receipt of written notice requiring remedy of the such breach: (b) By either Party forthwith upon written notice to the other Party, if any proceedings under any law relating to insolvency are commenced against the other Party or if any Party makes un application under any such law for being adjudged/declared an insolvent: (c) Either party may terminate this agreement with mutual consent by giving a 90 day written notice to the other party. MIPL agrees and undertakes to remove itself from the premises on the expiry of the ter or on the sooner termination of this agreement. 10.3. The right of either Party to terminate this Agreement will be in addition to any other remedies it may have. All remedies to either Party under this Agreement are cumulative and not alternative and may be enforced successively or concurrently. 10.4 Expiry/termination of this Agreement will be without prejudice to any rights that either Party may have accrued against the other prior to termination.” 29. This Court takes note of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.S. Manjunath (supra). The said decision undertakes a detailed contemplation of precedent on the concept of contracts “in their nature determinable” within the meaning of Section 14 of the SRA, and elucidates the principles governing the grant or refusal of specific performance in such cases. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted below: “ 47. The High Court of Madras in A Murugan v. Rainbow Foundation Ltd , 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 37961 , had further elaborated on the aspect of determinable contracts. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted below: “ 47. The High Court of Madras in A Murugan v. Rainbow Foundation Ltd , 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 37961 , had further elaborated on the aspect of determinable contracts. For the purpose of ascertaining determinability, the court bifurcated contracts into several categories: (i) contracts that are unilaterally and inherently revocable or capable of being dissolved such as licenses and partnerships at will; (ii) contracts that are terminable unilaterally on a “without cause” or “no fault” basis; (iii) contracts that are terminable forthwith for cause or that cease to subsist “for cause”, without a provision for remedying the breach; (iv) contracts which are terminable for cause subject to a breach notice being issued and an opportunity to cure the breach being given, and; (v) contracts without a termination clause, which could be terminated for breach of a condition but not a warranty, as per applicable common law principles. The court held that the abovementioned (iii), (iv) and (v) categories of contract are not determinable contracts. The court further observed that although the (iv) and (v) categories are terminable yet the same cannot be said to be in nature determinable. The relevant observations are as under: “17. On examining the judgments on Section 21(d) of SRA 1877 and Section 14(c) of the Specific Relief Act, as applicable to this case, i.e. before Act 18 of 2018, I am of the view that Section 14(c) does not mandate that all contracts that could be terminated are not specifically unenforceable. If so, no commercial contract would be specifically enforceable. Instead, Section 14(c) applies to contracts that are by nature determinable and not to all contracts that may be determined. If one were to classify contracts by placing them in categories on the basis of ease of determinability, about five broad categories can be envisaged, which are not necessarily exhaustive. Out of these, undoubtedly, two categories of contract would be considered as determinable by nature and, consequently, not specifically enforceable : (i) contracts that are unilaterally and inherently revocable or capable of being dissolved such as licences and partnerships at will; and (ii) contracts that are terminable unilaterally on “without cause” or “no fault” basis. Out of these, undoubtedly, two categories of contract would be considered as determinable by nature and, consequently, not specifically enforceable : (i) contracts that are unilaterally and inherently revocable or capable of being dissolved such as licences and partnerships at will; and (ii) contracts that are terminable unilaterally on “without cause” or “no fault” basis. Contracts that are terminable forthwith for cause or that cease to subsist “for cause” without provision for remedying the breach would constitute a third category. In my view, although the Indian Oil case referred to clause 27 thereof, which provided for termination forthwith “for cause”, the decision turned on clause 28 thereof, which provided for “no fault” termination, as discussed earlier. Thus, the third category of contract is not determinable by nature; nonetheless, the relative ease of determinability may be a relevant factor in deciding whether to grant specific performance as regards this category. The fourth category would be of contracts that are terminable for cause subject to a breach notice and an opportunity to cure the breach and the fifth category would be contracts without a termination clause, which could be terminated for breach of a condition but not a warranty as per applicable common law principles. The said fourth and fifth categories of contract would, certainly, not be determinable in nature although they could be terminated under specific circumstances. Needless to say, the rationale for Section 14(c) is that the grant of specific performance of contracts that are by nature determinable would be an empty formality and the effectiveness of the order could be nullified by subsequent termination.” (Emphasis Supplied) 48. In Narendra Hirawat & Co. v. Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. , 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 391 , the Bombay High Court observed that the phrase “a contract which is in its nature determinable” would mean a contract which is determinable at the sweet will of a party to it, without reference to the other party or without reference to any breach committed by the other party or without any eventuality or circumstance. In other words, the phrase would contemplate a unilateral right in a party to a contract to determine the contract without assigning any reason. The relevant observation is as under: ***** 49. In other words, the phrase would contemplate a unilateral right in a party to a contract to determine the contract without assigning any reason. The relevant observation is as under: ***** 49. The Delhi High Court in DLF Home Developers Limited v. Shipra Estate Limited , 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4902 while considering an agreement to sell a property held that the question whether a contract is in its nature determinable must be answered by ascertaining whether the party against whom it is sought to be enforced would otherwise have the right to terminate or determine the contract when the other party is willing to perform and is not in default. In other words, where a contract cannot be terminated so long as the other party remains willing to perform its part, such a contract is not determinable and, in equity, is specifically enforceable. The relevant observation is as under: “78. Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 sets out certain classes of contracts that are not specifically enforceable. One such class of contracts comprises of contracts, which are in their nature determinable. Clause (d) of Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 expressly provided that contracts which are in their nature „revocable? are unenforceable. The said statute was repealed and replaced by the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Clause (c) of Section 14(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as was in force prior to Specific Relief Act, 1877, expressly provided that contracts, which are in the nature determinable, were not specifically enforceable. The word „revocable? as used in Clause (d) of Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 was replaced by the word „determinable?. The rationale for excluding such contracts, which are in their nature determinable, from the ambit of those contracts which may be specifically enforced, is apparent. There would be little purpose in granting the relief of specific performance of a contract, which the parties were entitled to terminate or otherwise determine. The relief of specific performance is an equitable relief. It is founded on the principle that the parties to a contract must be entitled to the benefits from the contracts entered into by them. However, if the terms or the nature of that contract entitles the parties to terminate the contract, there would be little purpose in directing specific performance of that contract. Plainly, no such relief can be granted in equity. However, if the terms or the nature of that contract entitles the parties to terminate the contract, there would be little purpose in directing specific performance of that contract. Plainly, no such relief can be granted in equity. 79. Viewed in the aforesaid perspective, it is at once apparent that the contract is in its nature determinable if the same can be terminated or its specific performance can be avoided by the parties. Thus, contracts that can be terminated by the parties at will or are in respect of relationships, which either party can terminate; would be contracts that in their nature are determinable. If a party can repudiate the contract at its will, it is obvious that the same cannot be enforced against the said party. 80. However, if a party cannot terminate the contract as long as the other party is willing to perform its obligations, the contract cannot be considered as determinable and it would, in equity, be liable to be enforced against a party that fails to perform the same. Almost all contracts can be terminated by a party if the other party fails to perform its obligations. Such a contract cannot be stated to be determinable solely because it can be terminated by a party if the other party is in breach of its obligations. The party who is not in default would, in equity, be entitled to seek performance of that contract. In such cases, it cannot be an answer to the non-defaulting party's claim that the other party could avoid the contract of the party seeking specific performance, had breached the contract; therefore, the same is not specifically enforceable. Thus, the question whether a contract is in its nature determinable, must be answered by ascertaining whether the party against whom it is sought to be enforced would otherwise have the right to terminate or determine the contract even though the other party are ready and willing to perform the contract and are not in default. 81. The contention advanced on behalf of Indiabulls that the ATS is in its nature determinable as Indiabulls could terminate it on failure of the other parties to perform their obligations is, plainly, unmerited. This contention is premised on the basis that Indiabulls is correct in its assumption that the other parties had breached the terms of their obligation. 81. The contention advanced on behalf of Indiabulls that the ATS is in its nature determinable as Indiabulls could terminate it on failure of the other parties to perform their obligations is, plainly, unmerited. This contention is premised on the basis that Indiabulls is correct in its assumption that the other parties had breached the terms of their obligation. Concededly, if the other parties were ready and willing to fully perform their obligations, Indiabulls would not have any recourse to the termination clause. Such recourse is contingent on the failure of the other parties to perform the contract. It cannot be stated that the contract by its very nature is not specifically enforceable because it entitles a party to terminate the contract if the other parties have failed to perform their obligations. xxx xxx xxx 94. The question whether the contract by its very nature is determinable is required to be answered by ascertaining the nature of the contract. Contracts of agency, partnerships, contracts to provide service, employment contracts, contracts of personal service, contracts where the standards of performance are subjective, contracts that require a high degree of supervision to enforce, and contracts in perpetuity are, subject to exceptions, in their nature determinable. These contracts can be terminated by either party by a reasonable notice. (Emphasis Supplied) 50. In Affordable Infrastructure & Housing Projects (P) Ltd. v. Segrow Bio Technics India (P) Ltd. , 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4436 , the lease deed provided for a termination clause. Under the termination clause, the respondent had an option to terminate the lease deed by serving a 15 days' written notice in case the petitioner failed to make the payment for two consecutive months. The Delhi High Court on the strength of DLF Home (supra) observed that almost all contracts can be terminated by a party, if the other party fails to perform its obligations and that such contracts cannot be stated to be determinable solely because it can be terminated by a party if the other party is in breach of an obligation. The non-defaulting party would in equity be entitled to seek performance of that contract. The non-defaulting party would in equity be entitled to seek performance of that contract. The court held that the question whether a contract is in its nature determinable must be answered by ascertaining whether the party against whom it is sought to be enforced would otherwise have a right to terminate or determine the contract even though the other party is ready and willing to perform the contract and is not in default. The relevant observation is as under: “37. The law as stated above mandates against grant of stay against Termination Notice in respect of the Contracts which are determinable. The petitioner has relied upon DLF Home Developers Limited v. Shipra Estate Limited, (2022) 286 DLT 100 , wherein it was observed that a party cannot terminate the Contract so long as the other party is willing to perform its obligations. The Contract cannot be considered as determinable as it would in equity be liable to be enforced against a party that fails to perform the same. Almost all Contracts can be terminated by a party, if the other party fails to perform its obligations. Such a Contract cannot be stated to be determinable solely because it can be terminated by a party if the other party is in breach of the obligations. The party who is not in default would in equity be entitled to seek performance of that Contract. In such cases, it cannot be an answer to a non-defaulting party's claim that the other party could avoid the Contract of the party seeking specific performance and the same is not specifically enforceable. Thus, the question whether the Contract is in its nature determinable must be answered by ascertaining whether the party against whom it is sought to be enforced would otherwise have a right to terminate or determine the Contract even though the other party is ready and willing to perform the Contract and is not in default.” (Emphasis Supplied) 51. The Bombay High Court in Kheoni Ventures (P) Ltd. v. Rozeus Airport Retail Ltd. , (2024) 2 HCC (Bom) 60 , also observed that in order to arrive at a conclusion whether a contract is determinable or not, it is to be ascertained whether the parties have a right to terminate it on their own, without the stipulation of any contingency and without assigning any reason. The relevant observation is as under: “11. The relevant observation is as under: “11. In order to infer whether a contract is determinable or otherwise, it is to be ascertained, whether the parties have a right to terminate it on their own, without stipulation of any contingency and without assigning any reason. An inherently determinable contract would permit either party to terminate it without assigning any reason and merely by indicating, that the contract shall come to an end, either by giving a notice for specified period, if stipulated or even without such a notice.” (Emphasis Supplied) ***** 62. Since in principle unilateral termination of the contract is impermissible except where the agreement is determinable within the meaning of Section 14 of Act of 1963, it also becomes necessary, at this juncture, to examine whether the ATS dated 28.04.2000 was in its nature determinable. This question requires to be answered on a scrutiny of the terms of the ATS and the nature of the rights and obligations flowing therefrom. **** 64. In this backdrop, it would be useful to advert to the classification set out in A. Murugan (supra), wherein the Madras High Court categorised contracts into five broad classes depending on their ease of determinability. Out of those, the first two i.e., (i) contracts inherently revocable such as licences and partnerships at will, and (ii) contracts terminable unilaterally on a “without-cause” basis, were held to be determinable in nature. The remaining classes, namely, (iii) contracts terminable for cause without provision for cure, (iv) contracts terminable for cause with notice and opportunity to cure, and (v) contracts without a termination clause but terminable only for breach of a condition, were all held not determinable in nature. 65. Further, as laid down in DLF Home (supra), the question whether a contract is in its nature determinable lies in ascertaining whether the party against whom specific performance is sought has the right to terminate the contract even when the other party is ready and willing to perform. This means if the contract cannot be terminated so long as the other party stands willing to perform, it is not determinable in its nature and would, in equity, be specifically enforceable. The same reasoning was followed in Affordable Infrastructure (supra), where it was held that a contract terminable for breach cannot merely for that reason be regarded as determinable, otherwise, no contract could ever be specifically enforced. 66. The same reasoning was followed in Affordable Infrastructure (supra), where it was held that a contract terminable for breach cannot merely for that reason be regarded as determinable, otherwise, no contract could ever be specifically enforced. 66. Applying these principles, the ATS in the present case cannot be said to be a determinable contract. Viewed in light of the classification as set out in A. Murugan (supra), the ATS would squarely fall within category (v) as mentioned above. The ATS was devoid of any clause enabling termination for convenience or otherwise empowering either party to terminate unilaterally. The only conceivable circumstance in which ATS could be brought to an end in the present case was upon a breach of a condition by either of the parties. Thus, the original vendors did not possess any contractual right to terminate the ATS in the absence of default by the original vendees. The grounds cited in the notice of termination dated 10.03.2003, namely, the subsistence of a status quo order and the death of one of the original vendors cannot be said to be based on any default or breach by the original vendees. The original vendees had performed their part by paying a substantial amount and were also ready and willing to perform the terms of ATS.” (emphasis supplied) 30. It would suffice to observe that in paragraph 64 of the aforesaid judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly delineated various classes of contracts on the basis of the nature and manner of their determinability. The Apex Court, approving the classification adopted by the Madras High Court in A Murugan v. Rainbow Foundation Ltd , 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 37961 , has clarified that contracts which are inherently revocable, such as licences and partnerships at will, or those which are terminable unilaterally on a “without cause” or “no fault” basis, would fall within the ambit of Section 14(d) of the SRA, being determinable in nature. 31. In contradistinction, contracts which are terminable only for cause, particularly where termination is conditioned upon the existence of a breach and is subject to issuance of notice and affording an opportunity to cure, do not fall within the category of contracts that are determinable by their very nature. 32. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principles, Clause 10.2(a) of the present Agreement does not confer an unfettered, unilateral, or at- will right of termination. 32. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principles, Clause 10.2(a) of the present Agreement does not confer an unfettered, unilateral, or at- will right of termination. The right to terminate is expressly contingent upon the occurrence of a material breach and is further circumscribed by the mandatory requirement of issuance of a written notice granting a cure period of forty-five (45) days. The contractual stipulation thus squarely falls within the fourth category identified in paragraph 64 of K.S. Manjunath (supra), namely, contracts terminable for cause subject to notice and opportunity to cure, which have been held not to be determinable in nature. 33. This Court also takes note of the judgment of this Court in HK Toll (supra), which, after considering a catena of authorities, explains the scope of the statutory embargo contained in Section 14(d) of the SRA and underscores that the determinability of a contract must be examined in light of the termination stipulations agreed between the parties. The reasoning adopted therein emphasizes that where termination is conditioned upon specific contingencies or breaches, and is not exercisable at the mere will of a party, the contract cannot ipso facto be regarded as determinable in nature. 34. The above exposition, read holistically, clarifies that the question whether a contract is “in its nature determinable” must necessarily be answered with reference to the termination mechanism embodied in the contract and the extent of the power reserved to the parties thereunder. Where a contract envisages termination only upon the occurrence of specified contingencies, particularly subject to notice and cure provisions, and does not confer an unfettered right of revocation, such a contract cannot be characterised as determinable in the sense contemplated under Section 14(d) of the SRA. 35. Clause 10 of the Agreement in the present case provides for termination strictly upon the occurrence of defined contingencies and subject to compliance with a stipulated cure period. It does not vest either party with an unqualified or at-will power of termination. The issue of determinability must, therefore, be examined within that contractual framework, and not divorced from the express stipulations mutually agreed upon by the parties. 36. It does not vest either party with an unqualified or at-will power of termination. The issue of determinability must, therefore, be examined within that contractual framework, and not divorced from the express stipulations mutually agreed upon by the parties. 36. This Court finds merit in the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and is of the considered opinion that the termination clause embodied in Clause 10 of the Agreement is not in its nature determinable within the meaning of Section 14(d) of the SRA. The mere existence of such a clause, particularly one conditioned upon the occurrence of breach and compliance with a cure mechanism, cannot operate as a statutory embargo against consideration of interim protection. Consequently, the bar under Section 14(d) of SRA is not attracted so as to preclude the grant of interim relief against the Impugned Termination Notice. 37. Insofar as the objection founded upon Section 14(b) of SRA is concerned, this Court is unable to accept the same. Section 14(b) of SRA proscribes specific performance of a contract, the performance of which involves a continuous duty that the Court cannot supervise. The emphasis is on the nature of the obligation and the impracticability of judicial supervision over its execution. 38. In the present case, Clause 10 of the Agreement does not contemplate the enforcement of any continuous or minute operational obligations requiring constant oversight by the Court. The relief sought is confined to protection against termination pending arbitral adjudication. A bare perusal of the Agreement itself delineates the respective rights and obligations of the parties and does not require the Court to regulate day-to-day performance or assume managerial control over the arrangement. 39. To this Court’s mind, the bar as contemplated under Section 14(b) of SRA would arise only where the Court is compelled to remain in seisin of the matter and supervise the ongoing execution of reciprocal duties. No such situation is presented here. Accordingly, the bar under Section 14(b) of SRA is not attracted. 40. As respects the rival submissions touching upon the validity or otherwise of the Impugned Termination Notice are concerned, the same traverse into the merits of the underlying disputes between the parties. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness and convenience, this Court considers it appropriate to reproduce herein the tabular statement filed along with the Rejoinder by the Petitioner, which is extracted as follows: 41. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness and convenience, this Court considers it appropriate to reproduce herein the tabular statement filed along with the Rejoinder by the Petitioner, which is extracted as follows: 41. This Court is of the opinion that, at this stage, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 of the A&C Act and bearing in mind the limited compass of such jurisdiction as noticed in the preceding paragraphs, there arises no occasion to enter into these issues which are purely on the merits of whether or not the Impugned Termination Notice could have been issued. 42. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court consciously refrains from embarking upon a detailed examination of the merits of the various allegations levelled by the parties, as such an inquiry would trench upon issues that properly fall within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal. At this stage, it suffices to observe that, even assuming disputes exist with respect to the functioning of the machines, as contended by the Respondents, the resolution of such disputes must strictly conform to the procedure contractually agreed between the parties. 43. The Agreement, as between the parties, clearly stipulates, under Clause 10, that in the event of an alleged material breach, a prior notice is required to be issued specifying the breach complained of, followed by a stipulated cure period of 45 days to enable rectification or removal of such breach. Termination, therefore, is not an immediate or unilateral remedy, but one conditioned upon compliance with the agreed mechanism. 44. In the present case, even proceeding on an arguendo basis that certain deficiencies existed in relation to the machines, the Respondents were nonetheless bound to adhere to the termination mechanism embodied in Clause 10 of the Agreement. The proper course would have been to issue a notice identifying the alleged material breach and affording the Petitioner the contractually mandated opportunity to cure the same within the prescribed period. It is only upon failure to rectify such breach within the stipulated time that the right to issue a Termination Notice could have arisen. 45. As rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, there could be no occasion for a unilateral determination by the Respondents that the alleged defects were incurable, particularly in the absence of compliance with the contractual cure mechanism. 45. As rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, there could be no occasion for a unilateral determination by the Respondents that the alleged defects were incurable, particularly in the absence of compliance with the contractual cure mechanism. Such a determination, without affording the Petitioner the agreed opportunity to remedy the alleged breach, would be contrary to the express terms of the Agreement. 46. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned act of termination appears to have been effected in undue haste, placing the cart before the horse, and is prima facie not in consonance with the procedure and safeguards expressly incorporated in the Agreement. 47. Consequently, in view of the foregoing discussion and the prima facie findings recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the relief sought by the Petitioner for staying the operation and effect of the Impugned Termination Notice deserves to be granted. The Respondents are, accordingly, directed to strictly comply with and adhere to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, including the procedure and safeguards expressly stipulated therein with respect to termination. 48. At this interlocutory stage, the material placed on record prima facie indicates a departure from, and non-adherence to, the termination mechanism prescribed under Clause 10 of the Agreement. The contractual requirement of issuance of notice specifying the alleged material breach, coupled with the grant of a stipulated cure period, does not appear to have been complied with in its true letter and spirit. A prima facie case is thus made out, warranting the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 9 of the A&C Act. 49. Further, if the Impugned Termination Notice is permitted to operate during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings, if any, the consequences to the Petitioner would be both immediate and far- reaching. The Agreement in question admittedly subsists for a substantial unexpired tenure of approximately five years, during which the Petitioner is entitled to perform its contractual obligations and derive the corresponding commercial benefits. 50. In the considered opinion of this Court, a premature termination at this stage would effectively divest the Petitioner of these valuable contractual rights without the disputes having been adjudicated on merits by the Arbitral Tribunal. 50. In the considered opinion of this Court, a premature termination at this stage would effectively divest the Petitioner of these valuable contractual rights without the disputes having been adjudicated on merits by the Arbitral Tribunal. Such a course would not only disturb the contractual equilibrium between the parties but may also render the arbitral process itself illusory in practical terms, inasmuch as the subject matter of the dispute would stand irreversibly altered before a final determination is rendered. 51. The balance of convenience, therefore, clearly tilts in favour of preserving the status quo and maintaining the contractual relationship pending adjudication. If interim protection is declined, in view of the foregoing discussions, and the termination is allowed to take effect, the Petitioner would suffer consequences that may not be capable of complete restitution even if it ultimately succeeds. 52. In addition to financial implications, the Petitioner has demonstrated a credible apprehension of serious prejudice to its reputation, goodwill, and commercial standing as a premier agency engaged in the provision of diagnostic services. Such reputational harm, once occasioned, is inherently intangible and cannot be adequately measured or compensated in monetary terms. The element of irreparable injury is thus clearly established, warranting protective intervention at this stage. DECISION: 53. In view of the aforesaid analysis and findings, the Impugned Termination Notice is stayed. The parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the operation, implementation, and performance of the Agreement as it stood immediately prior to the issuance of the said Termination Notice. 54. At this stage, it is clarified that nothing contained in this Judgment shall be construed as an expression of any final opinion by this Court on the merits of the disputes between the parties. The observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present Petition and shall not be understood as a determination of the substantive issues. 55. Accordingly, all rights and contentions of both parties are kept open and expressly reserved to be urged before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. 56. In view thereof, the present petition, along with the pending application, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 57. No orders as to cost.