Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

40. In the case of Cox and Kings India Limited v. Indian Railways Catering Tourism Corporation Limited (2012) 7 SCC 587, Supreme Court was dealing with a case of restoration of a Lease Agreement, which stood terminated. The aggrieved party had invoked Section 9 of the Act and one of the pleas raised was that it had invested huge sums of money in the Project. Mandatory injunction was sought by the party. Supreme Court held as under:
―25. It is evident from the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties that the arrangement between the Respondent No. 1, IRCTC, was with the Appellant Company and, although, it was the intention of the parties by virtue of the Joint Venture Agreement that the luxury train, belonging to the Respondent No. 1, was to be operated by the Joint Venture Company, at least for a minimum period of 15 years, what ultimately transpired was the termination of the Agreement by the Respondent No. 1 in favour of the Joint Venture Company. As pointed out by the Division Bench of the High Court, the Appellant was not entitled to question such termination as by itself it had no existence as far as the running of the train was concerned and it was not a party to the proceedings. In fact, what the Appellant has attempted to do in these proceedings is to either restore the Lease Agreement, which had been terminated, or to create a fresh Agreement to enable the Appellant to operate the luxury train indefinitely, till a decision was arrived at in Section 9 Application.
26. It is no doubt true that the Appellant has invested large sums of money in the project, but that cannot entitle it to pray for and obtain a mandatory order of injunction to operate the train once the lease agreement/arrangement had been terminated. We are also unable to accept Mr. Rohatgi's submission that the Joint Venture Agreement was akin to a partnership. Such submission had been rightly rejected by the Division Bench. As rightly pointed out by the Division Bench of the High Court, the Appellant's remedy, if any, would lie in an action for damages against IRCTC for breach of any of the terms and conditions of the Joint Venture Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding.
41. In this context the findings of the Division Bench in Indian Railways Catering & Tourism Corp. Ltd. v. Cox & Kings India Ltd. and Another, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 113, are very significant and are as under :
―25. Based on the facts projected above, we come back to the main issue, namely, whether direction in the nature given, which are in the nature of mandatory injunction amounting to specific performance or directing continuation of the arrangement even when the agreement had been terminated could be given or not. Once the Joint Venture Agreement is terminated, prima facie we feel that even in the main arbitration proceedings, it would be difficult for M/s C&K to seek the final relief of specific performance and for restoration of the agreement. There is a huge possibility that in such a situation, normally M/s C&K would be entitled to damages even if it is held that Joint Venture Agreement was illegally terminated. After all, Joint Venture Agreement was a contract between the parties. It was only in the realm of contractual arrangement with no statutory flavour and no element of public law. While dealing with the contractual obligations under the realm of contract in a private field without any insignia of public element, it may be somewhat difficult for M/s C&K to maintain the relief of specific performance. The agreement was in commercial field to be governed by contract law, as between two private parties. In Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. v. The Stroh Brewery Company, AIR 2000 Delhi 450, the Court enunciated the principle on this aspect in the following words:

28. In the present case, when the adhoc arrangement or even the so-called lease has been terminated, we agree with the learned Additional Solicitor General that passing of mandatory injunction would amount to:

(i) First, create an agreement between Joint Venture company and IRCTC in relation to the train;
(ii) Second, enforce such agreement even though JV company was not a petitioner; and
(iii) Third, allow M/s C&K to take advantage of such agreement when, admittedly, even the ‗Lease Agreement' as per the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement was to be between JV company and IRCTC.‖