TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1425
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivered to the petitioner. Copy of the said notice is annexed as Annexure-M. 2. In the original petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the following prayers have been sought: a) restraining the Respondent from initiating any process of eviction/dispossession against the Petitioner from the said premises in possession and occupation of the Petitioner. b) restraining the Respondent from going ahead with the process of calling for tenders vis-a-vis the said premises in possession and occupation of the Petitioner. 3. Few facts of the matter are that the petitioner and the respondent entered into agreement for setting-up an International Standard SPA and Health Club under the name and style of Amatrra in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d an application in the year 2007, under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. An order was passed by referring the matter to the sole Arbitrator appointed by this Court on 28th April, 2008. It is alleged that in November, 2008, the respondent in its letter addressed to the petitioner has admitted the veracity of the said report of the Local Commissioner, inter-alia, to the effect that, "..... The area occupied by Amatrra at The Ashok was measured and documented by the Commission of Court, which was mutually accepted and signed both by you and The Ashok...." At the same time, statement of claims was also submitted by the respondent before the Arbitrator. In March, 2009, the respondent formulated a new Licensing Policy whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor are allowed in the pending petition filed by the respondent under Section 34 of the Act, the petitioner is liable to pay the amount along with interest claimed by the respondent. 8. In April, 2012, the respondent vide its Board Resolution amended its new Licensing Policy of 2009. The petitioner by letter dated 1st August, 2013 wrote to the respondent for renewal of the License Agreement for a further period of 10 years with effect from 1st March, 2014. The respondent on 12th August, 2013 sent the reply to the said letter, stating that the renewal would be made by Unit Licensing Committee subject to compliance of certain conditions and approval of C&MD. The petitioner on 1st September, 2013 replied to the respondent's letter dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the petitioner seeks automatic renewal of the said license for a further period of 10 years with effect from 1st March, 2014 and asked the respondent to inform the petitioner if any further formalities are required. The respondent vide its letter dated 12th August, 2013 has acknowledged the letter dated 1st August, 2013 written by the petitioner and informed the petitioner that as per the Policy of the Corporation, first renewal would be made on the recommendation of the Unit Licensing Committee, subject to the compliance of the following conditions and approval of C&MD, and not automatic as mentioned in the petitioner's letter. The said conditions are as under:- i) There are no dues outstanding against the licensee. ii) There is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that in view thereof, all the conditions and recommendations of the Unit Licensing Committee are satisfied as mentioned in the letter dated 12th August, 2013. He further states that on 29th November, 2013, the petitioner has also made the payment by way of account payee cheques towards full and final settlement of all the outstanding dues up to September, 2013. 13. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of alleged Licensing Policy of 2013 passed in alleged Board Meeting dated 26th December, 2013. It is stated that the Policy is arbitrary, illegal and unenforceable against the petitioner, as the same is against the test of equity, fairness and also against the public ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court does not possess power to prohibit or prevent the breach of contract. If this is possible in the realm of private contracts, it is an obligation in the realm of public enterprises. Furthermore, the provisions of Specific Relief Act relied upon by Ms. Singh are not attracted for the simple reason that the contract itself prohibits the claim of grant of compensation. A distinction must be drawn between a termination and determination... 16. Similarly, in the case of Atlas Interactive (India) Private Limited vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Anr., OMP No. 482/2004 decided on 17th February, 2005, this Court observed as under:- "...In the realm of private contracts, the freedom, which is available to a private party, in respect of th....