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 Article 14 and public law principles could be invoked to alter the express terms of a freely entered contractual arrangement with a public authority; (ii) Whether interim relief in the nature of injunction or specific enforcement could be granted in respect of a determinable contract governed by the arbitration clause.
Issue (i): Whether Article 14 and public law principles could be invoked to alter the express terms of a freely entered contractual arrangement with a public authority.
Analysis: The contractual relationship was entered into through a tender process and was therefore voluntary. The obligation of the State to act fairly and reasonably under Article 14 continues to apply in contractual matters, but that principle does not displace the contractual bargain or permit rewriting of agreed terms. In freely concluded commercial contracts with the State, the mutual rights and liabilities remain governed by the contract and the law of contract, and the doctrine of fairness cannot be used to add to or vary express contractual obligations.
Conclusion: The contention that public law principles alone governed the dispute was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether interim relief in the nature of injunction or specific enforcement could be granted in respect of a determinable contract governed by the arbitration clause.
Analysis: The contract was terminable in terms of its own stipulations, and the cancellation followed non-payment and a show-cause process. Where a contract is determinable in nature, specific enforcement is barred by Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and an injunction cannot be granted to restrain its breach by virtue of Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The appropriate remedy, if termination is found wrongful in arbitration, lies in damages rather than continuation of the contract through interim protection.
Conclusion: Interim injunction and specific enforcement were rightly declined.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the disputed arrangement was a voluntarily entered, determinable commercial contract, and the refusal of interim protection was consistent with the statutory bar against specific enforcement and injunction in such cases.
Ratio Decidendi: In a freely entered commercial contract with the State, Article 14 does not permit rewriting of contractual terms, and a determinable contract cannot be specifically enforced or indirectly protected by injunction; the remedy for wrongful termination is damages.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
