Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
D.N.Chowdhury, J.
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.and Ors. -Appellant
Versus
Flotech Consultants andServices Pvt.Ltd. -Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 398 of 99
Decided On : 18-11-1999
{'KEYWORD': 'ARTICLE 227', 'SUBJECT': 'SUPERSEDING JURISDICTION', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA', 'ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 CPC', 'SECTION 151 OF THE CPC', 'ORDER VII RULE 11 CPC', 'SECTION 41 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963', 'ORDER XXI RULE 32 CPC']}
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between ONGC Ltd. (petitioner) and Flotech Consultants & Services Pvt. Ltd. (opposite party) over the extension of a contract for the operation and maintenance of work over rigs. Flotech filed a suit in the Civil Court seeking a declaration that it was entitled to an extension of the contract and an injunction restraining ONGC from dehiring/demobilizing its services. The Civil Court granted an ex-parte injunction in favor of Flotech, which ONGC challenged through a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Civil Court had erred in granting the injunction without due application of mind and without considering the relevant legal principles. The Court noted that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action for the grant of an injunction and that the Court had failed to consider the balance of convenience and the irreparable loss that might be caused to ONGC by the injunction.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court could exercise its superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside the injunction order passed by the Civil Court. 2. Whether the Civil Court had erred in granting the injunction without due application of mind and without considering the relevant legal principles.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that it could exercise its superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside the injunction order passed by the Civil Court. The Court noted that the power of superintendence was conferred on the High Courts to ensure that the Courts and Tribunals abide by the law and do not contravene the same. In the present case, the Civil Court had acted in a manner that was contrary to the law and had caused injustice to ONGC. 2. The High Court held that the Civil Court had erred in granting the injunction without due application of mind and without considering the relevant legal principles. The Court noted that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action for the grant of an injunction and that the Court had failed to consider the balance of convenience and the irreparable loss that might be caused to ONGC by the injunction.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the injunction order passed by the Civil Court.
This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure questioning the legality and validity of a proceeding initiated at the instance of the Opposite Party No. I/ Plaintiff, M/s. Flotech Consultants & Services Pvt. Ltd., before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 1, Sibsagar, wherein the learned Civil Judge passed an order of injunction dated 1.10.99 (in Misc. (J) Case No. 64/99) in the form of an order for maintenance of status quo and an order dated 12.10.99 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 1 in Misc. (J) Case No. 66/99, directing the Police to do the needful for implementing enforcing the order dated 1.10.99 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 64 of 1999. The defendant/ ONGC Ltd being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, moved this Court by way of this revision petition challenging the legality and validity of the proceedings, the correctness and justification of the orders indicated, as being illegal and without jurisdiction.
2. The necessary facts leading to the institution of this proceeding are summed up hereinafter. A suit for permanent injunction was instituted by the opposite party No. 1 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sibsagar, impleading the present petitioners as defendants on the 1st of October, 1999. The said suit was registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 57/99. In the suit, the plaintiff pleaded that after processing the tender papers, the defendants allotted work for operation and maintenance of 2 (two) numbers of ONGC Ltd owned work over rigs for a period of two years. The period of work was extended from time to time and the plaintiff has been doing the said job till institution of the suit. The relevant part of the pleadings as mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 8 along with the prayer are called down below:
"4. That the defendants floated a tender vide Tender No. NZR/MM/OBC/O&M/WOR/ 05/98-99 dated 26.8.98 for operation and maintenance of the ONGC owned (upto 6 nos.) work over rigs fixing the closing date and time as 14.00 hours (1ST) on 25.9.98. 8. That in view of the High Court's order for suspension of further action in the matter of newly floated tender, the defendants have extended the contract of three other contracts viz. North Eastern Drilling & Work Over Pvt. Ltd. Dibrugarh, Jay Bee Energy Services Pvt. Ltd. and Assam Baryties & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. But, the plaintiff has not been given extension. Instead they have sent a fax message intimating the plaintiff that their services would no longer be required. In fact, the defendants have many incomplete job for work over services for which the floated new tender as aforesaid the further action of which has been suspended by the Hon'ble High Court. It may be noted that the plaintiff has been executing the job at the same rate at which the aforesaid three contractors have been executing. Thus, the action of the defendants, are arbitrary, illegal, and discriminatory. The plaintiff is entitled to get the equal treatment with that of other three contractors. So, the plaintiff is compelled to file this suit for declaration that it is entitled to get equal treatment with that of the three contractors and thus entitled to an extension of the contract and for further declaration that the decision of the defendants in not extending the job to the plaintiff is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory. The plaintiff has also prayed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from debiting/demobilising the plaintiff from the work over rig under reference.
The plaintiff therefore prays that - i) Suit be decreed that the plaintiff is entitled to equal treatment from the defendants as that of the other contractors viz. North Eastern Drilling & Workover (Pvt) Ltd., Assam Baryties & Chemicals (P) Ltd., and Jay Be Energy Services (P) Ltd. ii) Suit be decreed declaring that the action of the defendants to dehire/demobilise the services of the plaintiff in r
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
