Madras High Court
Southern Railway vs / on 17 September, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
O.S.A.(CAD).No.97 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
OSA (CAD) No.97 of 2025
& C.M.P.No.22244 of 2025
Southern Railway,
Through its General Manager,
Having Office at 37 MG 2VH Poonamallee High Road,
NGO Annexe, Park Town,
Chennai 600 003, Tamil Nadu. ... Appellant/Respondent
/versus/
Brandavan Food Products,
Rep. by its Partner, Sh.Rahul Agrawal,
Having its Office at:
D-187, FF, B-Wing, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase – I, New Delhi – 110 020.
Ph: 9650393831
Email: [email protected] ... Respondent/Applicant
Prayer: Original Side Appeal under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, read with
Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, read with Section 13 of
Commercial Courts Act and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, to set aside the order of the Hon'ble Judge passed in O.A.No.833 of 2025
dated 20.08.2025 and allow the present appeal.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:44:58 pm )
O.S.A.(CAD).No.97 of 2025
For Appellant : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel,
Asst. by Mr.V.Chandrasekaran,
Senior Panel Counsel.
For Respondent : Mr.Aravind Pandian, Senior Counsel
: Mr.Satish Parasaran, Senior Counsel,
for Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik,
Asst by Jasmeet Singh
***
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by G.Jayachandran, J.)
The Appeal is preferred by the Southern Railway, aggrieved by the
interim order passed by the Learned Single Judge on the application made
under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. The sum and substance of the dispute is that, the respondent is the
service provider for supply of catering materials to passengers of 'Vande
Bharat'. The respondent been served with notice of intention to terminate the
contract. The said notice issued under Article 17.1 of Model Agreement
providing 90 days for the respondent to submit his representation, is the subject
matter of the application filed under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:44:58 pm )
3. The Learned Single Judge thought fit that there shall be ad interim
injunction restraining the appellant, namely Southern Railway, from
proceeding further with the notice expressing the intention to terminate the
contract dated 30.05.2025.
4. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant
specifically contends that the impugned notice dated 30.05.2025 is the outcome
of the adverse report received by the Southern Railway regarding the
performance of the respondent in supplying the substandard food products to
the passengers. Under Article 17.1 of Model Agreement, notice been caused for
an explanation and representation. The Service Provider has given an interim
reply dated 19.06.2025, for which the appellant has given response on
04.08.2025. Even before awaiting for the outcome of the notice, the respondent
approached the Court under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and
obtained restrain order preventing the Railway from taking further course of
action. The application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is per se
pre-mature application and the interim injunction granted by the Learned Judge
is an unreasonable restriction on the Southern Railway from taking action
against the supplier of substandard food products.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:44:58 pm )
5. Per contra, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent submits that the impugned notice is the outcome of malicious
intention on the part of the Railways. After collection Rs.5.75 Crores as EMD,
bent upon to terminate the contract prematurely on untenable reasons. He also
submits that already Arbitration proceedings is pending between them
regarding blacklisting the respondent.
6. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that several complaints regarding the food supplied by the respondent been
received, including notice from the State Human Rights Commission, Kerala.
Since the situation is very alarming, to protect the safety of the passengers, the
impugned notice dated 30.05.2025 was issued expecting the respondent will
improve the quality of the service. The response been received and the case
will be dealt in accordance with the provisions of Model Agreement. The
apprehension of the respondent is ill-found and if the interim order is allowed,
there is possibility of perpetuating the supply of substandard food products.
7. To buttress his case, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant read out the prayer in the interim application, which is omnibus in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:44:58 pm )
nature seeking blanket protection to the Service Provider from taking any
action for breach of agreement.
8. This Court, after giving anxious consideration to the rival
submissions as well as the impugned notice and the Model Agreement, the
interim order passed by the Learned Single Judge, are of the view that the
apprehension expressed by the Respondent/Service Provider that the agreement
is intended to be terminated on the expiry of 90 days per se is not correct. The
impugned notice issued as per Article 17.1 of the Model Agreement, clearly
states that after the representation of the Service Provider, the Railway will take
decision whether the contract to be terminated or not and, in case, the contract
to be terminated, it will be done in accordance with Clause 17.5.4.
9. Though the Service Provider has sought omnibus blanket
protection, its application, the interim orders restricts the appellant/Southern
Railways only in respect of impugned notice dated 30.05.2025.
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we clarify that the
interim protection shall be only in respect of the defects mentioned in notice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:44:58 pm )
dated 30.05.2025 and it will not prevent the Railway from taking action against
the respondent for any other violation done subsequently or earlier.
11. The Learned Single Judge shall consider the application under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, at the earliest and all
factual issues to be considered on its own merits without prejudice to the
observations made by this Court.
12. In view of the above observations and clarifications, this
OSA(CAD).No.97 of 2025 is disposed of. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr.G.J, J) & (M.S.K, J)
17.09.2025
Index :Yes/No.
Internet :Yes/No.
Neutral Citation :Yes/No.
bsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:44:58 pm )
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
&
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
bsm
17.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 06:44:58 pm )
