Delhi High Court
Hejian Solidkey Petroleum ... vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 28 July, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW 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
versus
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD ..... Respondent
Through Mr. V.M. Vohra, Advocate with
Mr. Siris Kumar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
Caveat No.782/2015
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:-
O.M.P.(I) 377/2015 Page 1 of 5
"A. Pass necessary orders during pendency of the present petition as
prayed here under:-
i. Stay/suspend the impugned letter dated 09.07.2015 bearing
no.PLCC/SMPL-DBL/CL/1315 with immediate effect.
ii. Pass an order restraining the respondent from dispossessing
the petitioner from two sites which are in occupation of the
petitioner namely Dondi River site and Nala + SH25 site
iii. Pass necessary orders directing the respondent not to hinder
the petitioner to retrieve the line pipes belonging to the
respondent and the Drill Pipes along with other tools
owned by the Petitioner from the tunnel constructed at
Dondi River site in two weeks time.
B. Pass necessary orders for interim measures and stay the operation
with immediate effect and suspend the impugned letter of
termination dated 09.07.2015 bearing no.PLCC/SMPL-
DBL/CL/1315 issued by the respondent till commencement,
during arbitration proceedings and till arbitration is over;
C. Pass necessary orders directing the respondents not to hinder and
allow the petitioner to complete remaining work under way at the
Dondi River site which are almost 95% complete and at Nala +
SH25 site where petitioner is mobilized within total ten weeks
time after retrieval of pipes; and
D. Pass such further and/or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present
case."
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
O.M.P.(I) 377/2015 Page 2 of 5
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:-
"14. Contracts not specifically enforceable.--(1) The following
contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely:--
(a) a contract for the non-performance of which compensation in
money is an adequate relief;
(b) a contract which runs into such minute or numerous details or
which is so dependent on the personal qualifications or volition of
the parties, or otherwise from its nature is such, that the court
cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms;
(c) a contract which is in its nature determinable;
(d) a contract the performance of which involves the performance
of a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise.
41. Injunction when refused.--An injunction cannot be granted-
xxx xxx xxx
(e) to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which
would not be specifically enforced;"
5. A reading of the aforesaid provisions shows that where compensation
in money is an adequate relief, then such a contract cannot be specifically
O.M.P.(I) 377/2015 Page 3 of 5
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.
O.M.P.(I) 377/2015 Page 4 of 5
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
