TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether restoration of the distributorship could be ordered when the agreement was determinable and revocable under the contract. (ii) Whether the additional monetary and consequential reliefs granted in the award were sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether restoration of the distributorship could be ordered when the agreement was determinable and revocable under the contract.
Analysis: The agreement, as construed by the award itself, was terminable by either party under the contractual clauses governing termination. A contract of this kind is determinable in nature and falls within the category of contracts that cannot be specifically enforced. Once the finding was that termination was not valid under the stated clause, the remedy had to be confined to relief compatible with the nature of the contract. Ordering restoration of the distributorship amounted to specific enforcement of a determinable contract and therefore could not stand.
Conclusion: Restoration of the distributorship was impermissible and the award was liable to be modified to that extent.
Issue (ii): Whether the additional monetary and consequential reliefs granted in the award were sustainable.
Analysis: The award could sustain only relief that flowed from the invalid termination for the contractual notice period. Accordingly, compensation was confined to loss of earnings for thirty days' notice. The direction to pay the price of cylinders was unsustainable because those cylinders were the Corporation's property. The direction regarding refund of the demand drafts was based on a factual finding and was not interfered with. The challenge to the counter-claim did not survive for adjudication at that stage.
Conclusion: The respondent was entitled only to compensation for the thirty-day notice period and refund of the demand drafts, while the relief for the price of cylinders was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The award was modified: restoration of the distributorship was denied, compensation was restricted to the notice period, and the other reliefs were adjusted in accordance with the contract and the law governing determinable agreements.
Ratio Decidendi: A determinable contract cannot be specifically enforced, and where termination is held invalid the relief is ordinarily limited to damages or compensation flowing from the contractual notice period rather than restoration of the contract itself.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
