Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1712 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTIssuance of termination notice - Seeking Injunction restraining the respondent whether by itself or its men, agents, servants, assignees or otherwise howsoever from interfering with the peaceful exercise of the rights and discharge of obligation by the petitioner in accordance with the agreement - HELD THAT:- In order to merit consideration for grant of an injunction the prima facie case of the petitioner has to be established. To a very large extent the strength and weaknesses of the case of the parties have to be assessed by the court on the available evidence to come to a provisional conclusion as to whether the petitioner, on a balance of probabilities, has a better case than that of the respondent. Once the petitioner has been able to establish a prima facie case the court proceeds to consider the balance of convenience and the irretrievable injury factor. This means that the balance of convenience must be in favour of an order being passed in favour of the petitioner and that irretrievable injury will be caused to him if the order is denied. It is settled law that in case where damages provide the remedy an interim order of injunction cannot be granted. Conversely in contractual matters only in a suit for specific performance of an agreement could the court grant an order of injunction. This common law principle is well spelt out in Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is also trite that the court will not grant an order of injunction in a contract which is, by its nature determinable, and for breach of which damages are an adequate relief, or in a contract performance of which entails constant supervision by the court or one which runs into minute details. The termination notice dated 11th July, 2017 is set aside. Ordinarily, the petitioner ought to have been granted time upto 7th September, 2017 to complete the work. Since, this application has been pending in this court for nearly 45 days, the petitioner will get advantage of this period. The respondent is restrained by an order of injunction from terminating the contract till 7th September, 2017 and for a further period of 45 days thereafter. After this period the contract can only be terminated for any alleged breach of the petitioner after the date of this order. The petitioner will be entitled to resume the work forthwith - respondent is directed to co-operate with the petitioner. Application allowed.
|