EPIC Enzymes, Pharmaceuticals v. M/s.Feinchemie Schwebda
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr.K.J.Abhyankar with Mr.Jaydeep Mitra i/b.Desai & Chinoy, Advocate for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM: S.U.KAMDAR, J. CORAM: S.U.KAMDAR, J. CORAM: S.U.KAMDAR, J. DATED: 15TH DECEMBER, 2004 DATED: 15TH DECEMBER, 2004 DATED: 15TH DECEMBER, 2004 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : By the present Appeal, an order passed by the trial Court dated 18.10.2004 has been challenged. Though the trial Court has rejected the Application on the grounds that there is no proper service and, once the arbitration proceedings are filed under section 17, it is the arbitrator who has to grant interim orders and not this Court.
On merits, I have considered the application of the learned counsel for the Appellant. Page 67 of the paper-book contains the relief in two folds viz. i) that an injunction restraining the Respondent :2: from violating the terms of the agreement dated
26.11.2001 and for an injunction restraining the Respondents from placing any orders with the third party. A further mandatory injunction is sought by way of direction that the Respondent should continue to accept the supply from the Petitioner hereinabove.
I have perused the agreement dated 26.11.2001. The agreement is for the supply of moveable property. The relief sought in the arbitration petition before trial Court under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and present Appeal is, in fact, for the specific performance of the agreement to supply moveable properties. It is settled that in case of a breach of an agreement to supply moveable goods remedy is only by way of damages and not for specific performance except in case of exceptions set out in Specific Relief Act. Once the appellant cannot get such relief even at a final stage, the question of granting the same at interim stage does not arise.
In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, no relief can be granted in the present Appeal. The Arbitration Appeal is therefore dismissed. There :3:
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Specific Relief Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 15 Dec 2004. The bench was S U KAMDAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.