TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies interim injunction, upholds termination right, emphasizes arbitration for compensation.</h1> <h3>Maytas Infra Limited Versus Utility Energytech and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.</h3> The Court rejected the petitioner's plea for an interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing the respondents' right to terminate ... - Issues involved: The judgment involves the invocation of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for seeking an interim relief of injunction against the respondents regarding a termination letter.Details of the judgment:Issue 1: Invocation of Section 9 of the Arbitration ActThe Petitioner invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration Act seeking an interim relief of injunction against the respondents regarding a termination letter dated 13.04.2009. The contract in question was for the construction of a carriageway on a National Highway project in Tamil Nadu. Disputes arose due to delays in handing over land and other related aspects. Despite attempts to settle disputes through correspondence, no resolution was reached.Issue 2: Consideration of Termination NoticeThe Court considered the termination notice, the clauses of the agreements, and the parties' submissions. It noted the disputes between the parties, including delays and the invocation of force majeure clause. The Court emphasized that the merit of the disputes should be examined in detail by the Arbitral Tribunal, as it involves a commercial contract where parties must decide and take appropriate actions.Issue 3: Rejection of Interim ReliefThe Court rejected the petitioner's plea for an interim injunction, stating that the respondents, as the decision-makers, had the right to terminate the contract based on available material. The Court highlighted the importance of completing the project within stipulated time and the need for detailed inquiry and trial to resolve the disputes. It emphasized that the petitioner could seek compensation or damages through arbitration but was not entitled to the relief of injunction as requested.In conclusion, the Court rejected the ad-interim relief sought by the petitioner and scheduled the matter for further proceedings on a later date.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
