Skip to main content

No Interim Relief Under Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Against Terminable Contract

Cause Title : M/s Suryapushpa Distributors vs Rail Land Development Authority, Delhi High Court, O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 213/2022 and I.A. No. 14394/2022

Date of Judgment/Order : 13.01.2023

Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh

Citied: M/S Inter Ads Exhibition Pvt Ltd vs. Busworld International Cooperatieve Vennotschap Met Beperkte Anasprakelijkheid, 2020 SCC Online Del 2485

Background

An application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by the Petitioner in view of threats issued by respondent vide letter dated 1st July 2022 to terminate the Letter of Acceptance (“LoA”) dated 9th February 2022 executed by Petitioner and the Respondent. 

The Petitioner alleged that the instant matter was listed on 11th July 2022 where the counsel for the respondent sought time to file a reply to the petition but in utter malice instead of filing the said reply the respondent terminated the LoA vide communication dated 19th July 2022.

Consequently, through this Interim application, the Petitioner sought to amend the prayer and  pray for  Interim relief of status-quo ante qua the termination LOA dated 09.02.2022 and land admeasuring 35,127 sq. mtr., which is subject matter of LOA, be directed to be maintained till disposal of the Section 9 Petition.

The Respondent opposed the amendment and submitted that the instant relief sought by way of amendment is not maintainable under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.

Judgment

The High Court observed that at this stage it is crucial to examine that the termination already made final by the respondent cannot be challenged by the petitioners by way of a Section 9 petition.

The High Court held that where the LoA was in fact terminated, no relief lies in favour of the petitioners/applicants for challenging the order of termination on merits. The court referred to the judgment in M/s Suryapushpa Distributors (supra) where it has been held that since the contract in the present case was terminable and as the issue of the legality of the action of termination has yet to be determined and further, since wrongful termination can be restituted by awarding of damages, in the event the appellant is able to establish that the said termination was illegal and invalid, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined the reliefs prayed for by the appellant in the Section 9 petition.

The High Court decided that this Court, exercising its powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, cannot go into the merits of the termination order and adjudicate upon a challenge to the same.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more