SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Swajal Water Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited - Respondent
Arb. A. (COMM.) 37 of 2021 & I.A. 9395 of 2021
Decided On : 10-09-2021




A determinable contract cannot be subject to specific performance, and an Arbitral Tribunal cannot entertain stay applications on termination if it does not examine the validity of such termination.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37(2)(b) and Section 17 - Appeal against Arbitral Tribunal's order rejecting application seeking stay of contract termination - Court confirms that no application for interim protection can be entertained if the Tribunal is not examining the validity of termination. (Paras 1, 7, 15)

(B) Determinable Contracts - Court holds that contracts characterized as determinable cannot be subject to specific performance, thus, the Tribunal's rejection of the stay application was justified. (Paras 7, 9, 10)

(C) Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal - It is emphasized that the Tribunal's role involves addressing disputes duly referred to it, affirming that this does not extend to disputes it has opted not to adjudicate. (Paras 12, 15)

Facts of the case:
The appeal concerns a contract awarded for installing water vending machines, wherein a dispute arose regarding the payment of license fees and subsequent termination of the contract by the respondent due to alleged default by the appellant.

Findings of Court:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the appellant is permitted to approach a newly constituted Arbitral Tribunal for interim measures.

Issues: Whether the contract was determinable and whether the Arbitral Tribunal could grant a stay on termination.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that since the Arbitral Tribunal was not considering the validity of the contract's termination, it could not provide interim relief regarding the termination.

Result: Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. (ORAL)--The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37 (2) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter `the A&C Act') impugning an order dated 24.01.2021 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. By the impugned order the Arbitral Tribunal has rejected the appellant's application under Section 17 of the A&C Act, inter alia, seeking that the termination of the Contract with the respondent be stayed.

2. The appellant was awarded the contract to install Water Vending Machines (101 in number) in four clusters by a letter dated 23.03.2017. The appellant claimed that it successfully installed the Water Vending Machine (WVMs) in terms of the Letter of Award and also paid licence fee amounting to Rs.65,42,319/-for the first year including the security deposit of Rs.13,32,762/-. There is some controversy whether the licence fee was payable from a fixed date or from the date of actual commissioning of each WVMs.

3. The respondent alleges that the appellant had failed to pay the licence fee in accordance with the terms of their Contract. The respondent had also suspended the Contract with the appellant. There is a dispute between the parties regarding the licence fee payable by the appellant as well as the action of the respondent in suspending the Contract in question. The appellant has raised claims in respect of the quantum of licence fee and has also raised claims on account of the alleged loss suffered by it as a consequence of the actions of the respondent. The Arbitral Tribunal has been constituted and is considering the said disputes.

4. During the pendency of the disputes before the Arbitral Tribunal, by a letter dated 23.11.2020, the respondent terminated the Contract with the petitioner in respect of all four clusters on account of the alleged failure on the part of the appellant in paying the licence fees.

5. In the aforesaid context the appellant had filed an application under Section 17 of the A&C Act praying that the termination order dated 23.11.2020 be stayed.

6. It is the appellant's case that the Contract, in question, is not in the nature of a determinable contract. The appellant contends that the question of default in payment of licence fees - the sole ground on which the respondent has terminated the Contract - is the subject matter of dispute and the Contract in question could not be terminated on that ground.

7. The Arbitral Tribunal heard the application and dismissed the same by the impugned order. The Arbitral Tribunal had reasoned that since the Contract was a determinable one, an application seeking stay of termination of the said Contract was not maintainable as that would amount to granting specific performance of a determinable Contract which is impermissible.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to the Clause 8.2 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) as applicable to the Contract in question. The said clause reads as under:

    8.2 Termination of Licence:

    The licensor shall also be entitled at on any time forthwith to terminate the other events Licence without notice in any of the of default following events, that is to say(a) in the event of the Licensee being convicted by a court of law under the provisions of criminal procedure code or any other law (b) in the event of the Licensee being an individual or, if a firm, any partner in the Licensee firm being at any time be adjudged insolvent or a receiving order or order for administration of his estate made against him or shall take any proceeding for liquidation or composition under any insolvency Act for the time being in force or make any conveyance or assignment of his interest or enter into any agreement or composition with his creditors for suspended payment, or if the firm be dissolved under the partnership Act or, in the event of Licensee being a company, if the company shall pass any resolution to be wound up either compulsorily or vo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top