Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
O.M.P.(I) 377/2015
28th July, 2015 HEJIAN SOLIDKEY PETROLEUM MACHINERY CO. LTD..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Deepak Dhingra, Advocate with Mr. Pushpendra Singh and Mr. Atul Parmar, Advocates
Through Mr. V.M. Vohra, Advocate with Mr. Siris Kumar, Advocate
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
Caveat No.782/2015
JUDGMENT
1. Counsel for the caveator appears. Caveat accordingly stands discharged. O.M.P.(I) 377/2015 & I.A. No.15004/2015 (stay)
2. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in which the following reliefs are prayed:- 2015:DHC:5970
3. Disputes exist between the parties with respect to the Contract awarded by the respondent to the petitioner dated 07.03.2014. The Contract was for laying down oil pipelines and details of which are given in para 5 of the petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned termination of the Contract in terms of the letter dated 09.07.2015 issued by the respondent.
4. Law is now well settled that a contract which cannot be specifically enforced, in such cases injunction cannot be granted. This is clear from a reading of Section 14 (1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 read with Section 41 (e) of the said Act and which provisions read as under:-
5. A reading of the aforesaid provisions shows that where compensation in money is an adequate relief, then such a contract cannot be specifically enforced. In a contract, such as the present, and in all other similar contracts, petitioner incurs expenditure as a whole and ultimately enters into a contract for a profit margin viz compensation in money. Therefore compensation in money is an adequate relief to the petitioner and once the compensation in money is an adequate relief, and which will be payable to the petitioner in case the petitioner succeeds in proving breach of contract by the respondent under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, such a contract cannot be specifically enforced and therefore even injunction as prayed for cannot be granted, in view of the aforesaid provisions of Sections 14(1) and 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act.
6. It may also be noted that under sub-Sections (b) and (d) of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, a contract which runs into minute or numerous details and a contract in which there would require a continuous supervision by the court, even such contracts cannot be specifically enforced, and once such contracts cannot be specifically enforced, no injunction can be granted. The subject contract will also fall within the ambit of Section 14 (b) and (d) of the Specific Relief Act.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited an ex parte Order dated 28.02.2014 in O.M.P. No. 260/2014 titled as Mayar Health Resorts Ltd Vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation, to argue that injunction should be granted, however, I am of the opinion that ex parte orders do not lay down any ratio for courts to follow and more so the order which is relied upon does not refer to Sections 14 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act. Also, the reliance placed by the petitioner upon Order dated 22.04.2015 in O.M.P. No. 302/2014 titled as Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Limited Vs. National Highway Authority of India is not applicable as it does not lay down any ratio because this Order is just a five line order confirming the interim orders.
8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is therefore dismissed. JULY 28, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. nn