Advocates:
D.V.Sehgal, HARISH N.SLAVE, N.K.AGRAWAL, P.SHROFF, R.SASIPRABHU, R.SHAKDHAR, S.S.SHROFF, S.SINGH, SURUCHI AGARWAL

Key Points: - (!) (!) (!) Court discusses termination clauses (clause 27) and grounds for immediate termination; whether termination was valid and the scope for restoration. - (!) (!) (!) Arbitrator found termination not validly effected and granted restoration plus compensation and return of assets; but issues arise about enforceability under Specific Relief Act. - (!) (!) The award includes monetary compensation for notice period and return of drafts; restoration granted as exceptional relief. - (!) (!) Court identifies error of law apparent on the face of the award for granting restoration where contract is revokable; heavy reliance on Sections 14, 16 of Specific Relief Act. - (!) Counter-claim status: arbitrator did not decide counter-claim since not within reference; issue discussed for potential legal misconduct. - (!) (!) Questions framed about validity of termination and relief; legal arguments about onus and constitutional considerations. - (!) (!) Modified relief: compensation for 30-day notice period and return of drafts; costs ordered. - (!) Citation: 1991(1) SCC 533.

What is the validity of termination under clause 27 of the Distributorship Agreement and whether restoration of the distributorship can be granted as a remedy?

What determines the proper scope of relief in arbitration when a revokable contract with notice-and-termination clauses is found to be breached?

What is the appropriate measure of compensation and whether counter-claims should be considered when all disputes were referred to arbitration?