As per case facts, the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 had a Radiology Services Agreement for fifteen years, which had a substantial unexpired tenure. Respondent No.1 issued a Termination Notice alleging ... contractual and statutory breaches. The Petitioner disputed this, arguing the agreement was for a fixed tenure and could only be terminated for material breach with a cure period, neither of which occurred. The Petitioner approached the Court seeking interim injunctions to restrain the termination and maintain status quo. The question arose whether the Agreement was "in its nature determinable" under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and if the reliefs sought were barred under Section 14(b) due to continuous duties requiring court supervision. Finally, the Court found that the termination clause, being conditional on material breach with a cure period, did not render the contract determinable at will under Section 14(d). The Court also ruled that Section 14(b) was not attracted. The Court concluded that the termination was effected in undue haste and not in consonance with the agreed procedure, granting the interim relief by staying the Termination Notice and directing the parties to maintain status quo.