Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The appellant, Universal Petro-Chemicals Ltd., filed a suit for specific performance of a collaboration agreement and for a perpetual injunction. The trial court refused to grant specific performance but granted a perpetual injunction. An appeal was filed, which was dismissed by the High Court, and subsequently by the Supreme Court.

2. The collaboration agreement was entered into with a foreign company and involved manufacturing and marketing lubricants under a licensed brand within India. The agreement was extended multiple times, with the last extension valid until 31.12.2009.

3. The termination notice issued by the respondent was challenged, with the court examining whether the agreement was validly terminated. The court found that the agreement was extended till 31.12.2009 and that the termination notice issued before this date was invalid.

4. The court observed that the relief of specific performance could not be granted because the agreement involved ongoing obligations and continuous technology transfer, making specific performance impractical and unenforceable.

5. The court granted a perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from marketing or distributing products under the Aral brand in India until 31.12.2009 but did not grant specific performance of the agreement.

6. The appellant sought damages for the period from 24.08.2005 to 31.12.2009, claiming that damages could be awarded in lieu of specific performance. However, the court noted that the appellant had not claimed damages in the plaint or during the proceedings and had not taken steps to amend the pleadings to include such relief.

7. The court emphasized that under applicable law, damages cannot be awarded unless specifically claimed in the plaint, and the appellant failed to do so. The court also referred to relevant legal principles that restrict awarding damages without a proper claim.

8. In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, holding that no relief for damages could be granted due to the absence of a claim for such relief in the pleadings. The appellant was not entitled to damages for the period in question, and the original orders were upheld.

9. The court reiterated that reliefs such as damages must be explicitly claimed and that the legal provisions restrict courts from awarding such damages in the absence of a proper claim, emphasizing the importance of following procedural requirements.

These points summarize the court’s reasoning and the outcome of the case, highlighting the importance of proper pleadings and adherence to legal procedures in claiming damages.