Uttarakhand High Court
AO/199/2023 on 23 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 199 OF 2023
23RD MAY, 2023
BETWEEN:
Mehwar Kalan Sehkari Shram Samwida Samiti Ltd.
.....Appellant.
And
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & another
....Respondents.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, proxy
counsel for Mr. Ashish Joshi,
learned counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing
Counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The present appeal, under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is directed against the order
dated 21.04.2023, passed by the learned Additional District
Judge, Commercial, Dehradun in Arbitration Case No.22 of
2023, CG No.22 of 2023, whereby the petition preferred by
the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, has been dismissed.
2. The appellant and respondent no.1 entered into an
agreement whereunder the appellant agreed to provide
manpower, i.e. drivers and conductors to respondent no.1 for
running its buses. The case of the appellant was that under
the agreement, the appellant had agreed to provide 233
drivers and 356 conductors. The appellant had also provided
security to the tune of Rs.50.00 lakhs under the agreement.
After taking 75 personnel as conductors from the appellant,
respondent no.1 stopped requisitioning further drivers and
conductors from the appellant, and instead, started sourcing
such personnel from respondent no.2. Aggrieved by the said
conduct of respondent no.1, the appellant preferred the
petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act- since there is an arbitration agreement between the
parties, to seek an interim injunction against respondent no.1
from taking the services of respondent no.2.
3. Upon issuance of notice, respondent no.1 contested
the petitioner, and filed its reply claiming that the services
offered by the appellant, were not satisfactory. By the
detailed order, the learned Commercial Court has dismissed
the petition preferred by the appellant.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant,
and also perused the impugned order.
5. The contract between the appellant, and
respondent no.1 was a contract involving personal services,
and such a contract is specifically not enforceable. That being
the position, the appellant was not entitled to seek an
injunction to prevent the breach of the agreement. On that
short ground, in our view, the appeal of the appellant is liable
to be dismissed.
6. Mr. Saini submits that the Commercial Court has
made certain observations on the merits of the disputes
between the parties.
7. It goes without saying that all such observations
made in proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act are prima facie in nature, as no trial has been
conducted.
8. The appeal is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)
(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.)
Dated: 23rd May, 2023
NISHANT
