JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. Appellant impugns Order dated 13.10.2022 whereby the application of the respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been dismissed holding that the application for injunction does not survive, and directing that it is open to the Appellant to take appropriate remedies impugning the Fax of Acceptance dated 07.10.2022 and for claiming damages and other reliefs as may be permissible in law.

2. Appellant had filed the subject suit seeking declaration that invocation by the Respondent of Clause 4.7.4.0 of General Conditions of Contract was illegal and void ab initio. Appellant had also sought a declaration that the contract does not require the Appellant to supply Hot Dipped Galvanised Iron Bolt or Steel section, and if it did require supplying the same, the supply would be at the existing market rate as extra works. A mandatory injunction is also sought against the Respondent to provide the maps/plans/drawings for the underground pipes/cables/utilities at the work site so that the Appellant can carry out the work in question at a fast pace.

3. Pursuant to Notice Inviting E-Tender for piling and civil and structural works for capacity expansion project at the Respondent’s Oil Refinery at Barauni, Appellant was awarded the contract for Engineering Procurement Construction and Material-22 (‘EPCM-22’) which comprises of 25 segments. The dispute is with regard to one of the 25 segments.

4. It is an admitted position that for the expansion project, one of the segments i.e., EPCM-22 was awarded to the Appellant, and there are other similar segments awarded to third parties. The dispute pertains to the termination of the contract with regard to one of the 25 segments which Respondent has terminated on the ground of delay in performance by the Appellant, and awarded the same to a third party.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that termination has been done on the ground of delay in performance. He submits that there is substantial material on record to show that the Appellant was not at fault in the execution of the contract and the site on which the work was to be executed was admittedly not made available by the Respondent as the same was encroached upon by material of third party contractors of the Respondent. He submits that since the termination is wrongful, and the relevant clause contains a negative covenant, Respondent could not have terminated the contract and an injunction was liable to be granted restraining the Respondent from terminating the contract and allotting it to a third party with regard to one of the segments.

6. On a query from the learned counsel for the Appellant, the categorical answer is that 25 segments are not so integral that one of them cannot be separated from the others. The admitted position is that one of the segments could have been independently allotted to a third party for execution. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the termination of one of the 25 segments is rightful or wrongful.

7. We notice that in the prayer clause of the Suit, the Appellant has sought a simplicitor declaration that the termination is wrongful. There is no consequential relief prayed for injunction restraining the Respondent from allotting the terminated segment to a third party or permitting the Appellant to execute the work.

8. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that no notice requiring the Appellant to remedy the breach was issued in terms of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

9. However, reference may also be held to the provisions of Section

20A of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which reads as under:-

“20A. Special provision for contract relating to infrastructure project,- (1) No injunction shall be granted by a court in a suit under this Act involving a contract relating to an infrastructure project specified in the Schedule, where granting injunction would cause impediment or delay in the progr