Delhi High Court - Orders
Arvind Medicare Private Limited vs Dr. Neeru Mehra on 1 February, 2021
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Sanjeev Narula
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO (COMM) 12/2021
ARVIND MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Biswajit Das and Ms.Anamika
Sharma, Advs.
Versus
DR. NEERU MEHRA ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 01.02.2021 CM No. 2263/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions and as per extant Rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
FAO (COMM) 12/2021
3. The appeal impugns the order of the Commercial Court, of dismissal of an application of the appellant/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to retrain the respondent/defendant, a medical practitioner, from practicing anywhere else in violation of the service contract dated 9th March, 2019 with the appellant.
4. We have enquired from the counsel for the appellant whether not in terms of the dicta of the Division Bench of this Court in Arvinder Singh Vs. Lal Pathlabs Pvt. Ltd. 2015 SCC OnLine Del 8337 and in terms of judgment of one of us (Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.) in Modicare Limited Vs. Gautam Bali 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10511, the question of the appellant being entitled to interim injunction does not arise.
5. The counsel for the appellant has contended that on the amendment of FAO (COMM) 12/2021 Page 1 of 2 the Specific Relief Act, 1963 w.e.f. the year 2018, the law has totally changed and the appellant would be entitled to a decree for specific performance. It is asserted that the appellant is not seeking to enforce any negative covenant in the contract with the respondent.
6. We have next drawn the attention of the counsel for the appellant to Section 14(c) of the Specific Relief Act as amended, which still provides that a contract which is so dependent on the personal qualifications of the parties that the Court cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms cannot be specifically enforced. We have enquired, whether not rendering duties as a doctor would amount to a contract dependent on the personal qualification of the respondent.
7. The counsel for the appellant has contended that the performance of the respondent is to be controlled, not by the appellant but by the Medical Council of the State or of India and thus Section 14(c) would not be applicable.
8. On enquiry, whether the appellant is willing to perform its part of the contract, by depositing in this Court, subject to further orders, of the entire amount at the rate of Rs.2.25 lakhs per month for the period 16th March, 2019 to 31st March, 2022, less the amount already paid to the respondent, the counsel for the appellant states that the appellant will deposit the said amount within three days of today in this Court.
9. List for further consideration on 5th February, 2021.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J SANJEEV NARULA, J FEBRUARY 1, 2021/SU FAO (COMM) 12/2021 Page 2 of 2