THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. MAHANADI PETROLEUM PRIVATE LTD. B A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Consequently, the instant appeal stands allowed and disposed
Provisions considered
Judgment
MAHANADI PETROLEUM PRIVATE LTD. B A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (NOW THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NH-5 (OLD) 16 (NEW), BIRUAN, P.O. SERGARH, DIST.- ODISHA, PIN- 756060, BEING REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATION SRI MAHESH KUMAR, SON OF LATE BISHWANATH DABRIWAL, R/O- BURDWAN ROAD, SILIGURI, PIN- 734005, WARD NO. 9, KHALPARA, P.S. SILIGURI, DIST.- DARJEELING, WEST BENGAL. Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : MR A KAKOTI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Date : 24.06.2022 ORDER Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A Kakoti, learned counsel for the respondent. This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act of 1996) challenging the order dated 20.03.2020 passed in Misc (Arb) Case No.02/2019, whereby the Court of the District Judge, Tinsukia vide the impugned order in a proceedings situated under Section 9 of the Act of 1996, granted interim measures to the effect that the respondents/the appellants herein were restrained from terminating the contract dated
Operative part
14.04.2007 for the retail outlet of the petitioner company without proper adjudication of the disputes between the parties by an arbitrator. The learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. Choudhury, submits that in terms with the agreement entered into by and between the appellants and the respondent herein dated 14.04.2007, Page No.# 3/3 there are various clauses by which the contract in question can be determined. He refers to Clause 57 and 58 of the said agreement to show that the said contract between the appellant and the respondent herein was determinable in nature. The learned senior counsel for the appellant further submits that in view of the provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, if a contract is determinable in nature the same cannot be specifically enforced. The learned counsel further drew the attention of this court to Section 41(e) of the said Act of 1963 which stipulates that an injunction cannot be granted to prevent the breach of a contract, the performance of which cannot be specifically enforced. I have perused the impugned order. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it reflects that the Court below did not take into consideration the said aspect of the matter. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the said order is in the teeth of Section 14(1)(d) and 41(e) of the Act of 1963 for which the said order is interfered with. Consequently, the instant appeal stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Consequently, the instant appeal stands allowed and disposed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 37; Specific Relief Act, 1963 — s. 14(1)(d).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 24 Jun 2022. The bench was DEVASHIS BARUAH.