Mutual termination by supplemental agreement under Section 62 can bar interim injunctions against ending the original contract.

A contract may be terminated by mutual consent under Section 62 of the Contract Act, and a later agreement that expressly records consensual dissolution will generally govern the parties' relationship. Here, the supplemental agreement stated that the franchise arrangement would continue only up to a fixed date, after which the original contract would end. The plaintiff's challenges based on unconscionability, unequal bargaining power, duress, coercion, want of consideration, and illegality were not supported by sufficient material at the interim stage, especially where the plaintiff had negotiated, accepted, and acted on the supplemental terms without timely protest. Interim injunctions were therefore refused because relief could not be granted to continue the earlier arrangement contrary to the binding supplemental agreement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the supplemental agreement validly brought the original franchise agreement to an end by mutual consent, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to interim injunctions on the basis that the termination clauses of the original agreement and the supplemental agreement were void for want of free consent, consideration, or legality.

Analysis: The original agreement was followed by a supplemental agreement expressly recording that the parties had agreed to continue only up to a fixed date and that the original arrangement would terminate thereafter. The Court held that parties competent to contract may also rescind or terminate their contract by mutual consent, and such consensual dissolution is recognised by Section 62 of the Contract Act. The plaintiff's objections based on unconscionability, unequal bargaining power, duress, coercion, and want of consideration were rejected for want of sufficient material and because the plaintiff had negotiated, accepted, and acted upon the supplemental agreement without timely protest. In the circumstances, the supplemental agreement was not shown to be illegal or invalid at the interim stage, and no injunction could be granted contrary to its terms.

Conclusion: The supplemental agreement was held to be operative and binding at the interim stage, and the plaintiff was not entitled to restrain termination of the arrangement or continuation of supplies contrary to that agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: A contract may be brought to an end by mutual consent under Section 62 of the Contract Act, and where a subsequent agreement validly records such consensual termination, interim relief cannot be granted to continue the earlier contract contrary to the parties' expressed agreement.

---