Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.Balaji, J
Gail (India ) Limited – Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
P.B.Balaji, J.
I have heard Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent and Mr.Rahul Balaji, learned counsel for the second respondent and I have gone through the affidavit and counter affidavit filed by the respective parties and also the supporting documents.
2. The application was moved by the learned Senior Counsel on 17.12.2024 and I was pleased to grant exparte interim injunction restraining the first respondent from supplying natural gas in respect of the area contracted by the applicant under the Gas Supply Agreement dated 18.09.2009 to any third parties, for a period of four weeks. Subsequently, the first respondent appeared and also filed a counter seeking for vacating the said exparte interim order granted by me. Pending the above application, the applicant has taken out yet another application in Application No.407 of 2025, seeking a direction to the first respondent to produce the documents mentioned in the schedule to the Judges Summons. Though no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in the said application, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan appea
The court upheld the invocation of the force majeure clause by the first respondent, ruling that the applicant had accepted the contract's termination and had no grounds for an injunction.
The court granted interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience for securing the disputed amount in arbitration.
The court clarified that the relief sought would amount to directing specific performance of the contract as an interim measure of protection, which is not permissible under section 9 of the a&C act.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss and injury in determining the entitlement to mandatory interim relief.
The court affirmed that exclusive agreements mandate adherence, allowing for interim relief to prevent irreparable harm during arbitration proceedings.
The court upheld that obligations under gas supply contracts are subject to government directives, affirming the validity of pricing based on regulatory compliance.
A claimant cannot assert frustration of contract based on force majeure conditions if those conditions were previously contemplated and stipulated in the contract.
Writ jurisdiction can be exercised when State, even in its contractual dealings, fails to exercise a degree of fairness or practices any discrimination.
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
