https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310793 The court dismissed the plaintiff's applications for interim relief, affirming the validity of the Supplemental Agreement and the termination of the original bottling agreement dated 5th November 1990. It held that the Supplemental Agreement was executed with mutual consent and without duress or coercion. The court found no merit in the plaintiff's claims regarding duress, coercion, and the invalidity of the termination clause. It emphasized that parties have the right to mutually terminate a contract and that granting interim relief would contradict the expressed will of the parties. The decision is subject to the final outcome of the suit. en-us Mon, 07 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Nov 2023 13:14:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310793 The court dismissed the plaintiff's applications for interim relief, affirming the validity of the Supplemental Agreement and the termination of the original bottling agreement dated 5th November 1990. It held that the Supplemental Agreement was executed with mutual consent and without duress or coercion. The court found no merit in the plaintiff's claims regarding duress, coercion, and the invalidity of the termination clause. It emphasized that parties have the right to mutually terminate a contract and that granting interim relief would contradict the expressed will of the parties. The decision is subject to the final outcome of the suit. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 07 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310793