M/S Fiza Developers And Inter-Trade Pvt ... vs M/S Balaji Produce Company on 2 July, 2010

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Fiza Developers And Inter-Trade Pvt ... vs M/S Balaji Produce Company on 2 July, 2010

Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOR-E.._>

DATED THIS THE 2"" DAY OF JULY 2010  T'   

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE 5. I%L4>i.%.nI/KS1 2tzAz1ai:;it__  ' -  

MISCELLANI30 US FIRST APPEA L lV0.§2zI9/[email protected]CPC)'§  ' * ~  '

Between:

M/S Fiza Developers & Intef'+«Tra:;le~.Pv?t.' Ltc'i--...:j AA  .
A company registered under the    . 
Companies Act, having its R;::g'istr§recl'-- _  '
Office at No.25/1§_.. gesivflenejq Roads; " l'
Bangalore ~» 2.5,.  5:".  . I  _y  V. V
Reptd. By its Manjagginlg'Di2§eetf}r_.A    '  
Mr. B.M.E;t_1f0dl;h."' 7:, 3   *    Appellant.

(By Sri   for M./s Hegde A/S)

Andzpf"

    Company,

.. " = Patftnership Firm,
 'Hayit'*ig off'icei at 'Yadugiri',
A "lK-l0,"3ij_).A§; 80, C.P.Ramaswamy Road,
 Chgnlla-t~"~ 600 018,
'F21an:§lnz1dt1.



ix.)

Sri V. Selvaraj,

S/0 Vedan, major.

Proprietor, M/s Sun Minerals,
Kibhanahnlli Cress,

Biligere Post, Tiptuif Taluk,

Tumkur District.  R€Sp(iI1dCl]:fS~. L" l

(By Sri Basavaptabhu s. Patil, Sr. Adv. 'f'orl{l ~  
Sri Gururzij Joshi, Adv. for R2)  i 

This Miscellaneous First Appelitideis» file-dl'L1~'_'!'dl€i'~{)l'(;l'a';'7J' 43
Ruie [(17) of CPC against the Qrder on_1,_Af.».No__2 in OL'S..NH0.él./Z2008
dated 8.8.2008 on the life of 'the«_Ci\_~*il Judge (s;~..Dn.) and JMFC,
CN. Halli, etc.  it - 1   _ 

This ll"Miseellune(;ii:s.V ._lX.ppeaE coming on for Final
Hearing this day, the ClC1.1t."l[ll{lie}-iﬁféﬁfﬁd the following:

 it  ll &iDGM £NT

   directed against the order on i..A.No.2 dated

 on the file of the Civil Judge (Si'.Dn.)

V and Jl\/EilFC, Chiikkéinayzikanahaili. The appellant is the plaintiff and

livid'-1:'€S'I')(iIl£l(j31I[ fire the defendants in the suit. For the sake of





convenience, the parties are icferrcd to by their respective 1*anV1.<in_g';_

before the trial Court.

2. The piaintifi' filed the £i1')0VC:=__S1lif;._ag£1i11Stiothti"f7iVI"f4.§ 

defendant for permanent injunction ries-traiiiing.its pamisersguiagents;
representatives, contractors, servants,7«henel11nen'* or any} one

claiming through or under '~i.{h:"'fI'OI';;] syciliirig,'~.ty1'iftting, suppiying,

transporting or issuing pern2iit$'forA w.,tra'n'spo'ftation of iron

ore/minerals extracted;1f1"on.1andfor"stocked/1yii'1g" in the schedule
mining area to a.ny:..tijird upiartiiesi.' in any Vf..rn.z1nner except to the
plaintiff orzits i1einine..e:;~:.__zi1;d 'i"0.r"a..gicCi9ee of mandatory injunction

directing theiiiirstgdefendant,V'i'ts_i.'partners, agents, representatives

contractors, servants', he'nchi'nen~-"or any one Claiming through or

_..nnde1~ jifro supp]y/3511,11iftmir().:i ore/minerals extracted from and/or

inLstoekszd/iyingiiéin"the schedule mining area to the piaintifi' by

ai'i*:.1ngi_n.g "p_t:t'i3_1i[:IVft)!'_:~{I'ElI]Sp()rl£1{i()n and other permissions issued

 by the Miiies ttndiifiéology i)epartine.nt as and when required by the

plaintiff nor. its2noiii.inees to a minimum quantity of 1,8().()()() metric





ton per year adhering to the terms and conditions of' the aigreeiitent

dated 20. I ?..?,O04.

3. It is contended by the plaititiff thatit  .i

business of export of iron t>1'e/m'tne1'a1s. "it has b::e'n'ut'eeeivii;1g Vi

severai enquiries for export of iI:(}I.]  ore 't"1'om&i'international
customers. In order to ensuiethe c;:)ntinuo"u.s_'~su'ppIy of iron ore for

export as and when the ove.ifsea§_    used to enter
into an agreetnent   or other suppliers
in order   ore available at its
disposal.:'--ffhe  to the plaintiff that it is
the holder of»  mivniﬁg:  M.L.No.2208 over an area of

184 %,a3;;i-é.su.tn S$r'.N_os.l2 and :3 of Gollarahalii village and

  vA',).f"--:};"ft';)1'l1'l€[)i'lElgi viilage in Chikkanayakanahalii Taiuk,

T'ti1n'}:.ur VDis'tviriet'.~;'An agreement was entered into between the

V -- piztintiff  first defendant on 20.12.2004 for saie of

 iiorefzn.i<_nera'l by which the first defendant agreed to deliver the entire

-- qtiamtty of minerai/ore extracted from 'Haif of Biscuit Pit and



Handikeia Area' 01' the said miiie exciusiveiy to the piz1intiffVex::_ept'

a quantity of £0,000 metric. ten per month of i'ejected__;i(3\w=' ;_. é 

iron ore/mineiiils, which is to he lifted for M/s G_z1:=.esh':"Miriera1s, 

the ore raising Contractor to meet his C()Iii.§l'E}C:E-LEE-H'}()b1igi1IiO'I1 't"(:'V};"'--k"1iS'~Z':-7 f

ceinent factories. By virtue 0i'.»t'1i-e__ saidi.;i}greein:;n'E;;the fiifsti

defendant was required to effect  ofpthea E0 the
plaintiff at Pit~i\/Ieuth/Pit  _ei:A_iy  evailzihle ah the
required permits f0r,t_he   Departments.
In pursuance ef   paid 21 sum of
Rs.Orie Crete:    as interest free
security to be refunded by the first
defendant tn»  of expiry of the agreement.

The te§mu*e.of theitagireeine-iit was for a period of 5 years from

 EA.1;1.10()5_renew'a«hie for a further period on mutuai agreed terms.

The"firstVVtiet'etici'a:nt" supplied ceiftain quantities of iron me to the

. p1aintiE't' initiziiify under various invoices. The first defendzint made

.t,su'pp!_y uplto the first week of May, 2006 and all of 21 sudden

.   suppiy of iron me to the plaintiff even though the first

%
2 A



defendant is duty bound to supply a minimum qU£'tI]{lty 0_l;."._

l,80,00_,000 metric ton per year to the plaintiff. The first   ;__ if .

did not comply with its contractual obligation in _l--l"iC»..lTIlEtl,tt31'g:0f

effecting supply of iron ore/mineral to theplaintiﬁ".l'7IThere'fore;"'it  if

has filed the aforesaid suit for the reliel's.__indieate_d"by me:'e'aif«li.er_.. _
4. The plaintiff filed an appE.ieatiuon:I.A.No..ll 't1n_t_ler"1Qrder

39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 1s5"i"'otfeijCpt:r.i-"or ana'd«lnterim
order of temporary injunction 1'e3t'railni1ig:'VtheiiVfirstzdel'e11dant, its

partners, representatix-'es,"_'contractors; se.r'vai1~ts..hlenchtne11 or any

one elaimirsg thr:)tigh".er__vt1nder_i't'-from' selling, lifting, supplying,

transporting or ilssuing  for transportation of iron

ore/ininezjails extract"etl__fro:n and/or stocked/lying in the schedule

¥.r¢ni1ii1ig_.zti'e:ttoanyv third parties in any manner except to the

pla3i"11tit"f.__t)r V'itsa"_norni'rrees. In the affidavit filed in support of the

Vatpplieatlion, v--the'p"laintil'l' has reiterated the plaint averrnents. it is

.,....'f{E}f{l'lCl':--§E'El{Cd' that the first defendant is making hectic efforts to

_se_il/'ente1"Ainto agreernents. issue transport perntits and also make

's

z



arrangements with third parties for the sale of iron ore/minera_l'e._V

extractedlstoeked from and/or lying in the schedule miniiig'ar_e.a: 5 ;. '

covered under M.L.N0.2208. The piaintiff 

investment in setting up of the crushing  screenilngrriaeihi-ne'1'iies__  A

anﬁcipaiing the supply of iron ore mineral from firse.tid'efendant_i§

and the n0n----supply has resulted  and
machinery idle. The first de1ierir§ant'i.i§in;_erd'er_'to:"defeat. the very
purpose of the agreement an;l.V--~e./atifse  to the
plaintiff has acted'_jn:  thereby attempting to
Supply iron   transportation to third
parties in bi-reach.tile~eojntractiT'Fheref'ore, the first defendant has

to be restrainedfrorn doiirigso pending disposal of the sui.t.
5. After ser\{ice..of riotiée, the first defendant has filed

:,i:'object_ions' to.'-3.A;No_2. ilitiiiisiieontended that there is absoiutely no

la'ps_;_e"oani'iet5.:ii3art andiljt is accordingly performing its obligation

0'  under the agrt%cEi1if1et--"1tii.dated 20.12.2004.

E



6. Defendant No.2 has filed objections to l.A.No."2.»

contending that it is doing extraction, iifttng and {1'211"1Sp()rE2l{i0_t1=(3:f7V 

iron ore from the suit schedule. mine since 1994. it had t'ilc:d ad'su.i:t~.  i"

against the plaintit'f in O.S.No. 1338/2006. The plaintiff_h§td,fi§ed a_

suit against him in O.S.No.lc14/2006 on the t'ile"<';1"y_t.1ri-e Civil: "}«!1_dgei'

(Jr.Dn.), Chikkanayakanahalli and yet aiiother   i'lll1'1a.'}€"l.[7ﬁ:"" it

and l.\/.Er.C.Senthil in O.S.No.l46/2iQVOt3, which were.VAc:l_t]l3-bed';

together. In the said case, the trial Court _passed-- a:n"order of
injunction in his favour hold;ing~..that_«'he is _no:~:.sessi0n ofuventire

I84 acres of land. Thereafter, theVit';ir'stidel'endant'-filed It suit against

him and one Mr.ASVen't.h-il_::'t'or"iri_it1ncti()ri in O.S.No.60/2006. The
court below onhearing.yt'he..i:pi;irti'es:;'"passed an order dated 31.8.2006

holding that he isuin*possession"ot" the entire schedule property of

1,84  The said oi'de.ry_\(as. challenged by the first defendant in

V."M'Fi.A';No.!ti()rty2/i2iO{lV6 and in MFA l\lo.l0()43/2006 before this

Court; Both  were dismissed on 29. .1. 1.2006 holding that

i   he is irypossessiti-nrti' the entire suit schedule property of I84 acres

and he has "been doing the mining work i..e., extraction of iron ore,

o~4'tI_§i's§.riil'F'
v



lifting and its transportation. The SLP filed by the first del'ei1dant_

against the said order has been dismissed by the Apex Court~._on.t 

26.3.2007. The plaintiff has atso filed a suit in collusionw'ith«i..the:  

first defendant in O.S.No.7/2007 and an application l'i_l.e_dT0~3.r. 

the said suit under Order 39 Rule 'l and 2 of"CPC was atlowetlwonfl  
21.4.2007 and appeals in MFA Nos.5399/21007:_e.fw.?5400/-2007'an'd__ 

5404/2007 were filed against the said _oi'dei'.'--_Ali~the cas-'<?::s:.a'risin'g. 

out of the order dated 21.4.2007 we--re"'~e.plbubbed».togeth'erRand'"an
order was passed on 29.1 1.2007 holdinguithat  seeitinrjvvdelendant

is in possession of the poi'ti0'r1 of the V1'suit,_sehedu1e property

excluding  -the first defendant. in the said

order, it was'hVel'd_t'hat._the.'st'ot:l;_:io'f "about 2.00.000 metric tone of
iron ore lying theesuit Vsehed;.ile*prope1'ty as on 2.} .2007 belongs to

_,him and heﬁsannot " seek. assistance of the first defendant for
 0 a.rr'anging th'e'tti'ai"n.spoi't permit for the transportation of the same. in

 ..t:he..plaii1tii"f himself claims to be in possession

of the "entire st.-itVA'.1=sehedule property of £84 acres, which was

2 siegtitixiesi  the"t1'i21l Court. It is "further contended that once the





T0

Courts have hetd that the first defendant is not in possession of 

suit schedule property to an extent of I00 acres, in the suit;'fiEed;h_\_/i   r

the first defendant in O.S.No.6()/2006 seeking reiiei' of

possession of the suit schedule property. he=_ca11n.ot be 'coi*npe~iiet1't0_  f

perform his part of contract which is b'eyor1d hi-it.-1 vr'e'astr12eb'ie '2C()i}EI'()}.:'§
It is further contended that having regatrd to_Veiause~ No.'11 of the
agreement, the dispute is at:-bitreitle. 7_He,prit1ys_ 'fQ'radi.smissa1 of the

7. On the ba.sis_of_the§:rivai_'t;::on.t'en.t'r'o.ns 'ot?~the parties, the

court beitwéyhzrs frztine'd «thevfoiiotio-i,.n_g--peints for consideration:
"('1) Whether the'piiaintiiff°'i:.a's,--~made out a prima. facie

case?

V (it) Whether the baiance of eo11ver1ie.nc.e lies in fzwour

A  :h'e--p:t'a:.éit::tr?--..

..,»-r-weak»



11

(iii) Whether the plaintiff would be put to irrepairabie   

injury by 1'el'usi11g to grant reiiefs prayed in  

appheauons?

(iv) What 01'de1"?"

The court below on consideration of'the1'entii'e materials' 

record. has dismissed the applications with cost." V

8. I have heard Sri S.K.V.Chalapathy,  Senior
Counsel appearing for the a1ppel_l:tnt and P1abhuiHSiiPatil,

learned Senior Coijrisel Vres];j)o~n_den_t No.l and Sri Gururaj Joshi,

learned Counsel for resgoiridenti  
9. Sri S._K;--Y. Chala__pa':hy',«.,si1b.m.its that under the agreement

V..-"edteredV_"ii;sto:hetweeniit'iie....g)i.aii1tift' and the first defendant dated

ii2t1.l2:.2(}0.4A,  defendant has agreed to deliver the entire

  que1:1tityi"of minetrj_ai.'ore extracted from 'Haif of Biscuit Pit and

ii*~.. _ Handikoia  of the mine in Sy.l\Eos. l2 and 13 of Gollarahalli

3%;

.2



12

village and Sy.No.l30 in Chikkttnztyztkanahalli, Tumkur District

exclusively to the plaintiff except the quantity of £0,000 metric

which is to be fitted for M/s Ganesh Minerals, the ore:t"r'aitsyiVng__"  , A'

Contractor to meet its contractual obligation. Therefore;-«.the. first 

defendant was required to effect del.ivery_,of rnineral/oVr"eW.tvo 'the;

plaintiff at Pit-Mouth/Pit Head by making ai:VV'aii3::bi'3; fall' 5: 'i

permits for transportation. The sale price was " fixietl at 

per metric ton exclusive of taxes payaliite-1 "The plaintiffrh-as paid a

sum of Rs.l crore 50 lakhs to the 1'irsti'd'etfendan_t as interest free
security deposit which is required to  i'ei'tt:nded by the first

defendant  th.e-plai'n.tiffi'at the_if't'i-tne-- of expiry of the agreement.

The tenure of agre--em'cnt.. for a period of 5 years from

__I.l..200p5_{andu.is retifewafble for a further period on mutual agreed

i'~terms.n_,The first defendant supplied certain quantities of iron ore to

the'p_Eai:1tyil'f  week of May, 2006 and all of a sudden,

V stoppedhiisuppiy "to; the plaintiff even though the first defendant is

if if '  supply a rninirnum. quantity of l,80,00_.000 metric ton per

 is why the plaintiff' had to file the aforesaid suit for



13

directing the first defendant to perform its obligation under 

agreement dated 20.12.2004. It is argued that the ore ext1iieted:'~._iV.

from the mines by the ore raising contractor is still z1V21il'&b_1e..  

plaintiff has paid court fee treating the stiitmasa s_u'i.t t'er_is'pe_cif'ic-7:

perforniance of the agreement. He has di'a__wn._ my att_en'ti»on ted'

Section 10 of the Specific Reiief Act,  'theiAet.'i 

submits that the specific per1'o'rna_aneei"oi'i the :t3()f1t1faC{ is einforceabfe
as the p1ai.nti1'f is seeking enforeen1ei'1'ti of viifeontract and not
seeking enforceine*nti'r2;.f:g.'a neigatiye--.~eoVenan_t;..  contended that

the compensation wi0_u1d"'*net""tijevi,iidecguate relief to relieve the

plaintiff ofgtlie ._hreac1* ,c;~.'I _c'ontracit'.'  __ --

10. Oniitheifothei'   Basavaprabhti S. Patil appearing

--,for the<.ifirst*defendan.tpcontends that the agreement entered into

i".Ege*tvtgeeng the*.p1a,iiitiff and the first defendant dated 20.12.2004,

which fins c0r;ie..int:(5 force from 1.1.2005, was for a period of five

 ' 'years. period of 5 years has expired on 31.12.2009.

A Ti'heref'o.re. the agreement is not enforceable as of now. The said

i
5
= i



14

agreement has not been renewed. Even according to the plaint'i{5il',"*.y

the first defendant has stopped supply of iron ore in ter1nt:«~~o.l;th_ea'if 

0'
D

a reement in the 1" week of May, 2006 and the §I)l'ellI'3Il.ff""i'l.£{1Si 

the suit on I i.2.2008 ie. after 20 months 'l'ro1n ttred_at'e_ ol'4Astt):ppageii it _ 

of supply of iron ore. Since. the period uniderthe cori--traet #112133:

expired, the appeal has become inlT1*uetiaiotia.' Etis  that
when the contract' for non~peri{fo't7.mar.i_ee  in
money is adequate relief  ;Vv1..ti'ti'(l)(a) of the
Act and it is    of the Act it
cannot be  attention to Section
I0(b) of the iwi--ii;:h_:iistatieaﬂthatspecific performance of any

contract may in the diseretiyon 'of, Court be enforced when the

__act agret§:d'Vto.be do"1ie._iVs such that compensation in money for its

A'~.no.n.;pgr£"ot'tnane.e'i'would not afford adequate relief. But, in the

pres~ent--._cz1se,tii't'_»t_he~;plVaintiff' establishes that the first defendant has

,illegally" faiied to"iperl'orm its obligation in the contract, the plaintiff

'to*.sj_eekcompensation, which is an adequate relief. He further

-jsuhiniitsiitirat having regard to Section 41 of the Act, plaintiff is not

i 7




15

entitled for grant of the reliefs sought for in the suit. However, 

not entitled for grant of an interim order of injunction.

ll. Sri Gururaj ioshi. learned Counsel submits

filed by the plaintiff is not maintainablethe 

arbitrable as per clause ll of the agreemerit tiated 20.}'.tl..?i,..2CU4§i*i .

When the suit itself is not i)1.E1ii1[E1'li1EllC)'iii'€;',' "question ~t)fii'grant of an
interim order does not arisvei_"'i'.E sub:1nitte.di"~that one  the
important considerations for grant "of: an*.,'int'_evrini order is

maintainability of theiisniit'. It further"cont.entl,e.ti that the suit is

also had for supiprresvsioniioil' tnateriai  The plaintiff has not

come to theACVourt with' ejleztn"..l_ian.:ts. He has not disclosed the

previous A.1it.ig2itionis filed fby.'the.'i first defendant in respect. of the

I-i:Vp.ro'pert"y" tguiestiiopn wherein' the plaintiff was also a party. On this

ground_r-alisLi,ith.c is liable to be dismissed. It is argued that

 the second det'enfdat1t has been doing the extraction. lilting and

" If'":rahspo1'tation "of iron ore from the suit schedule mine since 1994.

i  a suit in 0.S.No. 138/2006 against the plaintiff and the

§.






16

plaintiff' had filed a suit aigziinst the second defendant in

O.S.No.l44/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (_J1'.Dn.};i.._»

Chikkainayakanahalli. There was one more suit between the   ~

defendant and Mr.C.Senthil in O.S.N0.l.46/2006 and  

eases, applications filed under Order 39 RL;lemVl.i":1'r.«rl  of

were clubbed together, heard and an order oi'i'in_ju'netion  passed;~F. V'

in favour of the second defendant hold'ii1g*that heis in. 

of the entire 184 acres of land."There:i'fte'r;'   defend"an't"fiied
a suit against the second defendant  the_iiV'pfl'§iivnti_ff and one

Mr.Senthil for injunet'i'onL:VZin  said case, the

court below':_pas_sedﬂnn'eitder Ol1_>3iv.;.8.2G06 holding that the second

defendant is in=..possession"ol' ,the-- entire schedule property of 1.84

acres. "rn§s'ai{: order"'wiis ehnllenged by the first defendant in MFA

VisicisgioQ42/ﬁefiezaiitgi IOO43/2006 before this Court and both the

 on 29.11.2006 holding that the second

dei'endant isﬁin 'possession of the entire suit sc.hedule Property of

 I84 acres.  SLP filed against the said judgrnent of this Court

 i_i_l&1t_1_siiweendisniissed by the Apex Court on 26.3.2007. The plaintiff



37

has not challenged the order in O.S.No.6{)/2006 dated 24.6.2v()(}l5:.ll"a..

The suit has been filed by the 1)lai111ifl' in collusion witl1_j;'lie«firs1::  

defendant. The second defendant had again filed.----.z1:*:;ulit--.::in.

O.S.No.7/2007 and in the said suit, an orderon jjihee»appli--eaLio~n__ 

under Order 39 Rule I. and 2 of CF? C£'t'll1.'_3rl'(.) be
21.4.2007 against which the second cllle4i'e.i_x1_('1;!nVt filed  in
MFA No.540-<1/2007 so also   saidvlisuit. All
the cases arising out of_L_he  xx}./lve_l1lfe.::elilibvhledtiicéetlier, heard
and disposed of on  second defendant is
in possession 91:3'. properzy excluding

the area occupied  'l'irst"d_el'en_danF.. In she said order, it was
held that szoel; of abou;  ljakh"n1ae'ui?ie' ton iron ore lying in the suit
schedule propei'ly_< on l2._l[E_9"97.._.Eielongs to the second defendant.

_The plai.r1_1iffl"}:.e1s filed--thel suit: in question without disclosing these

 'inavteitisal"faeasli prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5



18

12. I have eare.£'uEiy eo:15icie1'ed the arguments made by 1'I'1:;3 

learned Counsel at the Bar and perused the materials p1aL'ed..'on._:' 5 

record.

13. As has been stated above, t'he:oIAain't'iff filec-:1' 

against the first defendant in O.Sy.No.4/vf'2{)0:E%'--._ for 

mentioned in paragraph (2) of this judgn1en'1. The s"ee_on'd oiefendzznt

got himseif impleaded in the  'ft1e« suit isnbaéed on
an agreement dated 20.12.2004 em-e1-:%;c1"'1mo_--~«1;A'y7f1;;.ma the first

defendant. The ag1'e'e:1;;es1: .12 1*e1~ee'1i.1'eo};{.i'1.12.2005 1111

31_.12.2009.[11 1e 't1=.e_..s9ee.1:r1e.;ea§e ewe plaintiff that the fi1':~'.t
defendant had311ppt1ed..1ﬁ_1}ie:a'1;*11'e1;« ore till the first week of May,

2006 only 'and the4"sa.jt. we 1>11eeg1;1 1 1.2.2008 i.e. after a iong lapse

:'v:_o:t't';20. 1ee1{me'11eeie_;11e  stoppage of supply of iron ore. The

st1'it---isgin dti1e"'«n.ata1'e_r>f' a specific performance of an agreement

'  dated '220.._i 2.2t}{}4n...'~e'The plaintiff." has not assigned any reason for the

W   delay in..approachi.1:g the Court. Be that  it may.

1.

e



19

E4. A perusal of clause 11 of the agreement 

2().i2.2(}(}4 entered into between the piaiiitifi' and firsr tie=i'ent1'an__t_i'if  

indicates that the dispute is arbitrabie. The said clause  

"ii. The parties agree that any  
differences arising out or in intert;reta.tiion 
agreement wili be referred for"'de--terrnii1.ati0n 
Arbitrai Tribunal under the prii{}ts;t_x;5'its_Vot' ihrbivtratjioniiti
and Reconciliation Act," ~i.996 .'t7\[/'.i'1.'(Ji.sA'c'i':'t3i3Vt3'\I'.'~':._i'()l1 wili"'be"
final. The seat of the '4'A'rt:'i-tra1._Vffribtiiial be at
Chennai. The Arbitration"'Tvriijunai_tie_terniine' the issue

at the ea1"iiest airgiiiot .1:atet?tt"1"an é'ix_Vrnoit--'.--hs. Both the

partiea    on  arbitrator and in

case t'hejz'._do  sole arbitrator being
appoiiitetitby _consen:,_  party shall. nominate an
artiiitratoi' and"'i.n_V_Vt:ase of difference of opinion among
 txtfe arbéitratortiiiiitihey are at liberty to choose an
i  .Lari--jitt'at0t' whose decision shalt be final

* and bindiing on the parties."

Thus, it when the agreernent provides for an alternative

 isuit fiieci by the giiaintifi' on the basis 01' the said

i
3
'1 2
"-5%



20

agreement is prima facie not niaintainable. it is well estabiisl1ed"'»s

that maintainability of the suit should aiso be taken into   

while considering grant of an interim order.

l5. Section 9 of the Arbitration andfoneijiliegtiion  J 

(for short 'Arbitration Act'), statesthat a p'ai'ty-- rnaypvbeforel' or":

during arbitrai proceedings or at any tilntellai't_e1f the-mja1<.i'ng  the
arbitrarl award but before it iserijforced in  with Section
36, apply to a Court for interim.Viprotectiojn i:f'~vact~ifon--l"of' the other

party is either in brieztciiiif the jternis ot'_lith_e"alg1ee»ment or rniiitates

against equity, f'ai.'i'Cplay 'Em?  justice. Therefore, a question
may arise as"to"wheth_e1' the "ﬂied by the plaintiff before the

Civil }t'.£ig€_ (Jr:D.n.t)*.and'"'.Jl\T/lFC at Chikkaiiayakanalli was

 rnlaintaiiiizible' Section  the Arbitration Act defines a 'Court'

rne.=uas.t'the Pri'nci.pa'rC§i*vil Court of original jurisdiction in a District,

V and inc'1ucle§:v'tl;e High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil

  g;u.risdiction;having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the

  -znatter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject

3
Eta





is not mai;-jltainable. "

21

matter of 3 suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a 

inferior to such Principal Civil Court, or any Court o1f""Sniall__:'  

Causes. Section 14 of the Karnataka Civii Courts Act.idefi'nes"the._

jurisdiction of the District Courts. it statesﬁthatnthlejj. f

shail be deemed to be the Principai,__Civt.l"._C'ourt t:_t"l"ltoitiC,:ginal'T;

jurisdiction within the local limits    P.
ANAND GAJAPA THI RAJD';:,g.1_'f'JD  DAJU
(DEAD) AND OTHERS [(2009)  Court has
held that it is ohliigatoiythforgl'-the;_ titiuft ::tt57"tet*et5l the parties to
arbitration in terrirlts to the competent
Court withiitvv'the_vnielaiCii;32(2) of the Act. Prima facie, 1'

am of the viett) thatvthe 'ts.;,tVit~ti't [liéliduﬁ of a Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.),

 ._ l'6_._'7Fh'ereji_s aisovllmerit in the argument of the learned Senior

Counsel "appe'aring"'i'oi' the first respondent that since the time under

has expired during the pendency of the appeal, the relief'-sought for in the suit cannot be granted. As noticed above, £3.

22 the period in the agt'ee1nent has come to an end on 3l.i2.2()()9a1id_ it has not been renewed. Tl1€i't3f0I'C-. question of 5 ;_. perforrnance of the contract at this belated stage does.t1ot._ateise.. Section l0 of the Specific Relief Act p1'o=vide:s..yfojr 'the: .e';ts.es'vvit1__ which specific performance of contract' i-s'_en'lorceiaE3l.et Provision is sub-section (b) of Section as otherwise provided in this ithei.isipe.t;ﬂil:iétpgrforrnartce of any contract may, in thedisc1'eti.o1.1:.o:i7. the xCifot1'i'it','§.f,.eyiti:o1'Ced when the act agreed to money for its [E011-p6I'fOI'1T]aI'lC6i\E{t)E}i:i.ti.i:'V'llt){. Section 14(c) of the Specific7i_Rel_ieticontract cannot be enforceabie which is in its paitutre d'etei':n'inaEslei.i'Section 43 (h) of the Specific Relief Actilays downthat aninjunetion cannot be granted when 'equaliy _elr'f'icac.ipous"relief can be obtained by any other usual mode of pii'oceie_dii1g'eXttept.i:in"'ct1se of breach of trttst. l'7...__ Apaz"t.ViTi¢oim the above, it is evident from the order in " 5iiiCt4S';Noa7/2tjtt:t7itatcd 2.1 .4.2()t.)7, that the court below has held that z 3 23 stock of about 2 iakh metric ton iron ore lying on the suit schedtiieiig property as on 2.E.2007, which belongs to the second (j(")'!;@ff1Ei§i§"t§..._:. 5 ;_. 4' Even in O.S.No.60/2006, the court below has heid tii;ii.ii{§:'}i:i;:'cé$ijci._ 00 defendant is in possession of the entire suit schedtjile'--_prope«rtyi.o!7_ f I84 acres. The said order has been at'1'i-r;_ne.d biythis Court jas__21Eso by the Apex Court, The piaintiff iiasiiiiiiotvidisciosed. litigation fiied by the defen(1antis:}1gg1ni_i:iii'?i.n_respectiot' the subject matter of the suit and from time to time, goiij; 'fried by the 2%:

defendant. It is not come to Court with ctean h.ands.. s'uppI'esised materials facts.

18. "As has been"~notice'd_above, the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and'-rthe~~-1*' defendant dated 20.4.2004 has cohae with et't'eet----«fi"om i.E2.2005 for a period of five.

years:' Titer peif.i'c;:i"e.fFiye years has expired during the pendency of 0 it " u,th'is e3].i2.20()9. The question therefore may also .f;«.,_.;1r'ise as to "wh:ethei" the agieeinent is enforceable as of now. In 3 3 s32 '23:' 7.4% 24 other words, whether the subsequent events can be taken noteo!.T._ The apex court in the SHIPPING CORPORATION 0Ivf_;1;rv'.:i1_A_.jf LTD. VS. MA CHADO BROTHERS AND OTHERS.-~----xtiIi€,,2't?t)4.A 3 SC 2093, has held that by the subseqt1ent.A_events. Iifu'--i'lie._o'i?i§i_'1tétl._i_ii=g; ii proceeding has become infructuou i.I:'i.:s'-._t}iE:1'i11ii§f1iV_iiit3 to the subsequent events, which iflifiudes ottx litigation. In PERCEPT VS.

ZAHEER KHAN ANDAN025E11iR'f.-.'it€filQ6l'2ii it has been held that :1 enforced after the expiry of in MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,:'iiVVUD,/tiIiftJR KUMAR -- AIR 2008 SC 2507, the Apex that in a suit filed by the Liccnseetfo restrain theliciensor from increasing the rent of the suit Vsliop,wil_'the:' per_iot1._ of the licence expires, the suit cannot be cot1t'itiu'etl.. .z1£'t)re'st{id aspect should also he kept in mind while he-_:mside1fi"ng gi'ziiit"o'l' interim order. The agreement has not been H C' .i9enewer.l_by iituitual consent of the parties. If that is so, the question (_i)l7_gi':tnt'i'ng of the interim order does not arise.

-.V;,,_;

25 E9. The decisions relied on by the learned Senior C'(iuu_ise_I__"

for the petitioner in U.P.STATE 13LECTRIC1:ryi,l_i;oA2§D,._ 3 LUCKNOW vs. RAM BARAI PRASAI) 6; ;4..rRL:_" 'V, I985 ALLAHABAD 265 has no application"tolthe i*act's;;6ij iiné; case. In the said case. it has been 1. propertylyvliiclillifs not in existence on the day of in due course of time becomes in respect of such 21 title in such property they is held by the seller in the c.apacity ;g'{;<;::.:;§: e; 2T-.:<.:.uit-- for compensation would not be an ztdequaterelief in i'e's{pect""o6f the order of contract in such at _vsituation..{l "16.. VI.lA'}Q§ltl'MIl\l'ERAI.S PVT. LTD. VS. BIKASH AIR 1996 CALCUTTA 67, it has been held thzit under the«lc_o1it1*iiCt; the defendant is obliged to sell. ex--pit mouth such ina!1ga.i1ese"'land iron ore which wouid be raised by the lV'idelfe1:<3n_nt. "The COI'lt1'€1C1' is one of sale and delivery of the ._n)21tE:-.t'ials,i the operation of the mines remaining entirely in the 3 5, ﬂag ._ g » 26 control of the defendant. Therefore no stlpervision of the court; l'1':;. necessary in the matter of operation of the mines. In the"prje;:.:.e_t'1t;' case, the period speciﬁed in the agreement has c()t11e.an.;'e.nd during the pendency of the appeal. ltfbiis also plaintiff' has supp1'essed material £'act's,_ Looll<'i.r_ag"z1t t'rc>m'*lanyl angle, plaintiff is not entitled for an interilnn.._llorde1'. Conéeqtlenttiy, the appeal fails and it is accordingléi hereby clarified that the Trial Court shall disApo§ev.oIt'vthc:tbstilt»Vontjig.l---merits and in accordance with law 9§'vti'thot1t*--'be§ng' influen'ce'tl~--%_:ty the observations made in the cou€§e'iof';»'this or'def;'~Nollcolstslg V BMM/--

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court