TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be granted to continue the operation of the luxury train after termination of the lease arrangement, and whether the petitioner could seek restoration of the arrangement or a fresh right to operate the train.
Analysis: The arrangement concerned a train owned by the respondent and operated through a joint venture company. The petitioner, though financially involved in the project, was not entitled to obtain a mandatory injunction that would in effect revive a terminated lease arrangement or create a fresh operating right in its favour. The remedy, if any, lay in damages for breach of contractual terms, while the operation of the train by the owner pending arbitration was an arrangement that could be accepted in the circumstances.
Conclusion: The claim for continuance of the interim arrangement was rejected, and the petitioner was not found entitled to the relief sought under Section 9.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court order failed, the interim arrangement in favour of the respondent was left undisturbed, and the dispute was directed to be worked out in arbitration without prejudice to the parties' rights.
TaxTMI 
