JUDGEMENT
ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE.J -
(1.) THE instant appeal would relate to an ad interim order passed by the
learned District Judge, Barasat in Miscellaneous Case No.155 of
2012 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 inter alia, staying the notice of termination of the contract. The
learned Judge observed as follows :-
"No doubt the statute has provided a remedy to the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in the matter of giving an order of interim measure to prevent the loss of money incurred by the petitioner. Since the unilateral decision taken by the respondent no.1 regarding termination/cancellation of order with petitioner no.1, the claim as put forward by the petitioner is perfectly bonafide when indeed the respondent no.1 has committed a breach of condition after ignoring the proposal for Arbitral Reference. "
(2.) THE facts would depict, the appellant Jessop and Company Limited was entrusted by the Bihar Government for renovation of eighty
seven number of barrage gates at Sone Barrage, Indra Puri in Rohtas district. The Jessop entrusted a part of the job to M/s. Abhishek
Engineering, the respondent as a sub-contractor. Jessop terminated
the contract on the ground, Abhishek could not perform their job
under the contract in time. They abused the officials in filthy
language. They insulted the officials at the site for which complaint
was lodged with the local Police Station. Abhishek abruptly withdrew
the work force. Consequent upon such breach Jessop terminated the
contract and threatened Abhishek for recovery of the damage.
Being aggrieved, Abhishek demanded arbitration in terms of the
Arbitration Clause stipulated in the agreement and approached the
learned District Judge for an order restraining effect of the letter
dated September 22, 2012. The relevant extract of the letter is
quoted below :-
"In the light of above and since you have already withdrawn your work force from site, we are left with no option than to cancel your contract immediately and make alternate arrangement for going ahead with the execution of the project. Please also note that the losses incurred by Jessop, because of your non-fulfilment of commitment as per terms of the contract, will be recovered from your outstanding payment, if any, and/or from the Plant and Machinery value which you have already placed at our site and in our works. For the reasons as stated above, our order on you for WAG-9 Loco Shell, where there was hardly any progress was cancelled. You are hereby debarred from entering out site premises and also our workshop which may please be noted. "
Mr. Ashok Kumar Banerjee, learned Government Pleader appearing for Jessop contended, the learned District Judge could not have
stayed the effect of the said letter without appreciating the fact that
the contract could not be specifically enforced in law. If the arbitrator
would come to conclusion, termination was wrongful, the arbitrator
would be well within his competence to award adequate damage to
the aggrieved party. He would rely upon an earlier letter dated
August 14, 2012 appearing at page 35 where Jessop cautioned
Abhishek earlier that they neglected to adhere to, as a result Jessop
was compelled to terminate the contract. Per contra, Mr. Subrata Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for
Abhishek contended, a sum of rupees sixty-five lacs became due and
payable apart from the security deposit. Hence, Abhishek was
compelled to slow the process of work. The Plant and Machineries
belonged to Abhishek were still lying at the site. Hence, the learned
Judge was right in passing the order of stay. He relied on Section
202 of the Contract Act to contend, once Jessop entrusted the job to them as sub-contractor and they submitted undertaking to the State
of Bihar they would be held responsible for maintenance and up
keeping of the job performed by them. The agreement could not be
terminated without taking the State of Bihar in confidence. State of
Bihar was never informed. To support his contention he cited the
following decisions :-
i) 2007 Volume-VII Supreme Court Cases Page-125 (Adhunik Steels Ltd. –VS- Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd.) ii) 2009 Volume-V Supreme Court Cases Page-182 (N.Srinivasa – VS- Kuttukaran Machine Tools Ltd. iii) 2012 Volume-I Arbitration Law Reporter Page-341 (Andhra Pradesh) (Hyderabad Cricket Association –VS- Visaka Industries Limited) Jessop entrusted a particular job to be performed on their behalf strictly as per the contract. Jessop in their wisdom cancelled the contract. If the cancellation and/or termination was wrong Abhishek would be entitled to appropriate damage. Abhishek could not compel Jessop to continue with the contract as such contract was not liable to be specifically performed.
(3.) IN the case of Hyderabad Cricket Association (Supra), the agreement was irrevocable. The association issued a communication
asking the other company under the contract to forego their rights
and privileges that they were entitled to under the agreement. The
Apex Court in considering the peculiar facts involved therein retained
the order of injunction considering the balance of conveyance. The
facts involved herein would completely differ that would keep the
proposition at bay. In case of N. Srinivasa (Supra), the contract involved immovable
property. Such contract could be specifically enforced. This fact was
duly noted by the Apex Court. We wonder how this decision would
have any application. Paragraph 31 being relevant herein is quoted
below :-
"As noted herein earlier, one of the main issues for the purpose of deciding the application for injunction was whether time was the essence of the contract or not. By the impugned order, the High Court had failed to appreciate that in the contract relating to immovable property, time cannot be the essence of the contract. In any event even in such a case the arbitration clause would survive and the dispute would be required to be resolved. That being the position, pending disposal of the arbitration proceeding, interim measure to safeguard the interest was required to be taken. " ;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.