The central legal point established in the judgment is that a determinable contract is not specifically enforceable under Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, leading to the invalidity of any injunction under Section 41(e) of the said Act.

This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is directed against an ex parte order of mandatory injunction dated 8.10.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Misc (Arb) Case No. 178/2002. By the aforementioned order dated 8.10.2002, the appellant, who was impleaded as the defendant No.l in the proceedings before the learned Court below, has been directed to re-activate/re­connect the Star Plus, Star World, Star Movie and National Geography Channels to the principal respondent until the disputes between the parties are resolved through amicable negotiation or arbitration as per Clause 23 of the Contract Agreement executed by and between the parties.

2. The brief facts may be noticed as hereunder :-

The principal respondent in the present appeal filed an application dated 5.10.2002 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Sonitpur under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') stating, inter alia, that the appellant, (the defendant No.l) was engaged in the business of providing T.V. Channel services to customers including the Cable Operators. The proforma respondents herein were described as the agents of the appellants. According to the principal respondent/ plaintiff, the plaintiff as one such subscriber and Cable Operator under the defendants at Tezpur was availing of the services of the defendants and making available various T.V. Channels like Star Plus, Star Movie, Star World and National Geography Channels to the various consumers by providing cable lines to them. The plaintiff in the application filed, further stated that the customers/ consumers were required to pay monthly service charge to the plaintiff and the plaintiff, in turn, was required to pay charges, as per the agreement, to the defendants for the facilities provided.

According to the plaintiff, he had been engaged in the said business since the year 1998 on the basis of a written agreement renewed from time to time. According to the plaintiff, the defendants had fixed 500 as the number of customers/consumers in so far the plaintiff is concerned and he was required to make payment to the defendants on the aforesaid basis every month as per the contract agreement in force. The plaintiff, in the application filed, has alleged that the number of customers/ consumers fixed for him by the defendant at 500 was too high and at his request, the number was brought down to 400 by mutual discussion. In the application filed before the learned Court below, the plaintiff had further alleged that the defendants had on several occasions, arbitrarily increased the number of customers/consumers of the plaintiff thereby compelling the plaintiff to pay higher/additional amounts by way of service charges.

It is the further case of the plaintiff, as stated in the application filed, that on 9.9.2002, the plaintiff received a letter from the defendant No.l asking the plaintiff to pay for 1800 subscribers failing which the services provided to the plaintiff were threatened with de-activation and/or disconnection. According to the plaintiff, mutual discussion took place and the defendants agreed to reduce the number of customers from 1800 to 1500 and had asked the plaintiff to make payment on that basis. The plaintiff did riot agree to the said proposal and instead, asked for a survey to be conducted by both the parties to determine 'the number of consumers/ customers of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has alleged that on 4.1012002, the defendants de-activated or disconnected the Star T.V. and other T. V. Channels made available to the plaintiff and as the said act is not only illegal but also had the effect of causing great inconvenience to the plaintiffs consumers/-customers apart from putting the plaintiff to irreparable loss, and harm, immediate exparte intervention of the learned Court below was prayed for by grant of interim mandatory injunction for restoratio