TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g lease bearing ML No.2293 granted by the Government of Karnataka in respect of the land measuring 472.32 acres situate in Sy.No.311 of Haraginadona village, Bellary Taluk. The lease is presently valid up to 04.01.2021. In that regard, the appellant and the respondent have entered into an agreement of Hiring Machinery and Equipment on Rental Basis dated 11.12.2012 to excavate the iron ore and red oxide in the leased land. The terms and conditions with regard to the manner in which the work is to be carried out and the payment thereof has been agreedtherein. Certain disputes have arisen between the parties which resulted in the respondent herein invoking the Arbitration Clause contained in the agreement. A petition was filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Mr. Justice K.Venkatraman, Former Judge, Madras High Court has been appointed as the Arbitrator. It is in that direction, pending consideration of the matter, the respondent herein sought for interim measure. The Court below after making a detailed consideration has granted the interim order. The appellant herein is claiming to be aggrieved by the same. 3. Heard Sri.Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Seni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of notice and not restoration of distributorship. (iii) The case of Percept D'Mark (India) Private Limited -vs- Zaheer Khan and Another [(2006) 4 SCC 227] wherein, the negative covenant in the agreement was kept in view and in that light, the grant of injunction to enforce it at the interim stage was considered. In that regard, the bar as contemplated under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act was adverted to and the consideration of principles for grant of injunction was enunciated in the facts arising therein. (iv) The case of M/s Gujarat Bottling Company Limited and Others -vs- Coca Cola Company and Others [(1995) 5 SCC 545] wherein, the principles to be followed in the matter of grant of injunction was considered keeping in view the provisions contained in Sections 41 and 42 of the Specific Relief Act with reference to the contract comprising an affirmative agreement coupled with a negative agreement. In that context, it was held that the grant of interlocutory injunction during the pendency of the legal proceedings is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion. While exercising discretion, the test with regard to prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce the petitioner can obtain the relief of forfeiture of the lease and eviction of the respondents. In that light, Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act where contract comprises an affirmative covenant coupled with a negative covenant was noticed and held that the fact Court cannot enforce the affirmative covenant shall not preclude the Court from granting an injunction to enforce the performance of the negative covenant. Therefore, in a case where there is a contract containing restrictive covenants, the Court shall restrain the breach of the restrictive covenants. If injunction is refused only because ultimately the petitioner may evict the respondents, then the principle of granting injunction will virtually become a dead letter. Normally, when the parties are seeking the relief of injunction on the basis of bargain between the parties, the Court should try to preserve the bargain struck between the parties. 7. Having taken note of the proposition of law cumulatively from the decisions cited by either side, it could be deduced that ultimately what would be relevant for consideration is the nature of the contract entered into between the parties with reference to the covenants ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the agreement, grant of injunction would amount to specific performance of the agreement, which is not permissible. The respondent would however point out that the right of termination is not absolute, but it is only in the circumstances as stated in the agreement and that too on mutual consent and such situation had not arisen at all so as to warrant termination. 9. In that background, the facts arising herein would disclose that as on the date a dispute arose between the parties, the same was only with regard to the allegation made by the appellant against the respondent with regard to submission of inflated bills which according to them was inappropriate and required auditing and reconciliation. The respondent on the other hand had invoked the arbitration clause subsisting in the said agreement and filed the petition under Section 9 of the A & C Act in A.A.No.7/2014 on the allegation that the appellant was making attempts to entrust the work to third parties which is contrary to the undertaking contained in Clause 6 of the agreement. 10. A perusal of the appeal papers will disclose, as on 05.05.2014 when the petition under Section 9 of A & C Act was filed by the responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... point when the bill had been submitted regarding which there were certain issues. As on the date when the respondent had alleged that they are being prevented from carrying out the work and a third party is sought to be brought in, the termination had not been made and in that circumstance the injunction had been sought pending consideration of all aspects in the arbitration proceedings. 12. In the objection statement filed before the trial Court, the contention urged to justify the action of the appellant is that the bills were inflated which required auditing and that even if there is breach it can be compensated. The further contention is that it involves long duration and therefore the Court cannot supervise the working if injunction is granted. It is also contended that the mining lease is to be saved. If that be the position, at that stage, when the issue was mainly with regard to the alleged inflated bill that had been submitted, it was an issue which could be resolved by arbitration and that alone was not sufficient for the purpose of terminating the agreement keeping in view the scope of Clause 7 and 8 of the agreement. In any event, at present, it is stated that the iss....