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

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more