Arbitrary termination in government contracts cannot justify removing bus advertisements without fair, disclosed reasons; interim protection granted.

A government contract could not be terminated arbitrarily, and a termination simplicitor had to rest on good, fair and disclosed reasons even if not set out in detail. The court found that the grounds relied on for termination existed when the contract was made and when it was later continued after compromise, and no new supervening circumstance justified the abrupt exit. The objection under the Specific Relief Act was rejected because the relief was treated as protective relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, not enforcement of specific performance of a determinable contract. Interim injunction was granted, restraining removal or defacement of the bus advertisements.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim protection under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 restraining the respondent from removing or defacing the bus advertisements, in view of the contractual termination clause and the respondent's asserted reliance on governmental and judicial directions.

Analysis: The contract was between a public instrumentality and a private party, and the respondent's freedom to terminate could not be exercised arbitrarily. A notice of termination simplicitor in a government contract must still rest on good, fair and disclosed reasons, even if the reasons need not be communicated in detail. The grounds invoked for termination were found to have existed when the contract was entered into and when it was later continued after compromise, and no new supervening circumstance was shown to justify the abrupt termination. The statutory objection based on the Specific Relief Act was not accepted, and the court treated the relief sought as protective relief under section 9 rather than enforcement of specific performance of a determinable contract.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to interim injunction, and the respondent was restrained from taking down or defacing the advertisements on the buses.

---