Determinable contract cannot be indirectly enforced through injunction; compensation remains the proper remedy for wrongful termination.

A petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act could not be used to restrain termination of a determinable contract or to obtain, in substance, specific performance through injunction. A contract of that nature is not specifically enforceable, and the bar under the Specific Relief Act prevents indirect enforcement by interim relief aimed at restoring status quo or stopping takeover of the work. The proper remedy for an allegedly wrongful termination is compensation. The Section 9 application was therefore held not maintainable and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be used to restrain termination of a determinable contract and thereby obtain relief amounting to specific performance.

Analysis: The relief sought was to prevent the respondent from giving effect to the termination of the agreement, restore the previous status quo, and stop takeover or redistribution of the work. The contract was treated as determinable in nature. In such a case, the governing principle is that a contract which cannot be specifically enforced cannot be indirectly enforced through an injunction. The cited provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 bar specific enforcement and injunction in relation to a determinable contract, and the only appropriate remedy for an allegedly wrongful termination would be compensation.

Conclusion: The application under Section 9 was not maintainable for the relief sought and was dismissed.

---