https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300903 A fixed-term commercial dealership contract could not be continued by interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act after expiry, because renewal depended on the respondent's sole discretion and acceptable terms. Relief that would effectively specific-enforce a determinable contract was barred by Sections 14(a), 14(c) and 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, and any grievance was confined to damages if wrongful non-renewal were proved. Legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel were held inapplicable against the express terms of a concluded private contract. The request for renewal, continuation, or any exit window was rejected. en-us Mon, 15 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Mar 2022 06:47:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300903 A fixed-term commercial dealership contract could not be continued by interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act after expiry, because renewal depended on the respondent's sole discretion and acceptable terms. Relief that would effectively specific-enforce a determinable contract was barred by Sections 14(a), 14(c) and 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, and any grievance was confined to damages if wrongful non-renewal were proved. Legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel were held inapplicable against the express terms of a concluded private contract. The request for renewal, continuation, or any exit window was rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 15 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300903