Delhi High Court
M/S Bharat Catering Corporation vs Indian Railway Catering & Tourism ... on 26 May, 2009
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: May 20, 2009
Date of Order: May 26, 2009
+OMP 281/2009
% 26.05.2009
M/s Bharat Catering Corporation ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi,
Advocates
Versus
Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corp Ltd. ...Respondent
Through: Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Advocate
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner's firm having five partners was awarded catering
contract by the respondent for various trains for providing mobile and static
catering services. It was one of the conditions of the tender that in case of
any change to be made in the constitution of the firm an approval shall be
sought from the respondent. During continuation of the contract, one of the
partners made representation to the respondent that the firm had been
dissolved and he had become the sole proprietor of the firm. Thereafter,
another partner approached the respondent saying that the representation
made by the partner to respondent was wrong and in fact he had been
expelled and the other partner was the sole proprietor. Four partners
continued to make allegations against each other and kept making
representations to the respondent that the other was no longer the partner of
OMP 281.09 M/s Bharat Catering Corporation v Indian Railway Catering & Tourism corp.Ltd.
Page 1 Of 4
the firm and the business now belonged to him. The license fees, running into
several lacs of rupees in respect of the contract also became due. The
partners lodged FIRs against each other and also made representations to the
respondent and filed dissolution deed of the firm and other documents and
letters resulting into the respondent cancelling the contract vide letter dated
6th May 2009. The letter dated 6th May 2009 is self-explanatory and gives all
details and chain of events as to how various representations were made to
the respondent regarding constitution of the firm, expelling of the partners
etc. The letter observed that in view of the inter se quarrel between the
partners of the firm and the fact that despite giving opportunities to the
partners to appear in person before Board Committee on 27th April 2009 along
with their affidavits and undertakings, two of partners did not appear
resulting into a serious doubt regarding existence of the firm and legal status
of the license. The respondent also notified that it was not clear as to who
was actually running the catering service. The respondent observed that in
such a scenario, the travelling public ought not to suffer inconvenience and
there would also be problems regarding fixing of responsibility in case of
breach of the terms of the license or non service or improper service. Thus,
the license was terminated by letter dated 6th May 2009.
2. The petitioner by this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996 made a prayer that the operation of this termination
letter dated 6th May 2009 should be stayed by the Court and the respondent
should be restrained from giving effect to impugned letter dated 6 th May 2009
and the petitioner should be allowed to continue with the catering service and
vending service in the trains being run by respondent.
OMP 281.09 M/s Bharat Catering Corporation v Indian Railway Catering & Tourism corp.Ltd.
Page 2 Of 4
3. During arguments, counsel for the petitioner brought all the four
partners in the Court and submitted that now they were one again and
explained the reasons of their non appearance before the respondent's
committee on the date fixed before it. It is, however, not in dispute that the
different partners filed letters and representations before the respondent
making allegations against each other and it is also not in dispute that even
an FIR was lodged by one of the partners against the others. It is also
revealed on perusal of record that the dissolution deed of the partnership firm
was also filed before the respondent.
4. It only seems that the four partners, after termination of the contract,
had come to the court together with the sole purpose to take relief from the
Court and to represent to the Court that they are one, though till other day
they were at loggerheads.
5. Be that as it may, the scope and ambit of Section 9 is not to restore the
contract which has already been terminated. The contract between the
respondent and the petitioner created a commercial relationship between the
parties. The termination of contract is one of the facets of the contract and as
per contract entered into between the parties, the contract could be
terminated by respondent for various reasons given therein. If the petitioner
is aggrieved by the act of the termination of the contract by respondent and
considers that the termination was bad or illegal, the petitioner is at liberty to
invoke the arbitration clause and claim damages, if any, suffered by the
petitioner. The contract cannot be restored by the Court under Section 9 nor
is it a case where the Court should interfere. In my view prima facie there is
no case made out in favour of petitioners. The petitioners' conduct, as
OMP 281.09 M/s Bharat Catering Corporation v Indian Railway Catering & Tourism corp.Ltd.
Page 3 Of 4
reflected from the impugned letter of termination justifies termination of the
contract.
6. I, therefore, find no force in this petition. The petition is hereby
dismissed. However, any opinion expressed herein shall have no bearing on
the arbitrator's decision if the arbitration clause is invoked.
May 26, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd
OMP 281.09 M/s Bharat Catering Corporation v Indian Railway Catering & Tourism corp.Ltd.
Page 4 Of 4
