Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.2. After negotiations, the plaintiff entered into a technical services agreement on 26.10.1988. As per the said Technical Services agreement, the first plaintiff had agreed to provide technical knowledge, skill and professional services required for operation of the Hotel. On the same day, a Project Consultancy Agreement was also entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant under which the plaintiff agreed to provide consultancy for creating the infrastructure viz. buildings etc., for the proposed Star Hotel. The second plaintiff which is the owner of the brand 'Oberoi' entered into a Royalty Agreement with the first defendant for use of http://www.judis.nic.in  CS No.164 of 2011 and Ts Cs No.108 of 2017 the name Oberoi for the Hotel to be constructed by the first defendant.

2.12. Again on 31.01.2005, the plaintiff No.1 through its Solicitors and Advocates wrote to the third and seventh defendants that the Technical Services Agreement dated 26.10.1988, the Project Consultancy Agreement and the Royalty Agreement are subsisting and they would be binding on all the assignees of the Hotel property. The defendants 3 and 7 were also cautioned to inform the intending purchasers about the existence of the aforesaid agreements, since those agreements would be binding on the purchasers also. In the response to the said letter, the third defendant reiterated it contentions in its earlier reply dated 28.12.2004. The plaintiff would therefore claim that it is entitled to the legal character and right to operate the Hotel under the Technical Services Agreement and the Project Consultancy Agreement dated 26.10.1988 and the second plaintiff would be entitled to have its name for the Hotel pursuant to the Royalty agreement http://www.judis.nic.in  CS No.164 of 2011 and Ts Cs No.108 of 2017 dated 26.10.1988.

10.2. In order to ascertain the rights of the plaintiffs vis-à-vis the first defendant, the three agreements dated 26.10.1988 will have to be looked into. All these agreements are to provide services both Technical and Consultancy which contain the finer details of services offered in the hospitality industry. Under the Technical Services agreement, the first plaintiff has agreed to provide its technical knowledge, skill and technical services for the operation of the Hotel upon payment of fee subject to other terms and conditions provided. The said agreement also provides that the same shall be valid for a period of 25 years and an option for renewal is also given to the parties. The term of the agreement is to commence on the date of the agreement viz. 26.10.1988.

10.9 Relying upon Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, Mr.Siddhartha Mitra, learned senior counsel, would contend that the fact that the Court is prohibited from either granting the relief of specific http://www.judis.nic.in  CS No.164 of 2011 and Ts Cs No.108 of 2017 performance or an injunction will not prevent the Court from granting an injunction to perform the negative covenant. According to the learned counsel, the defendants 1 and 2 had agreed not to avail the services of any other person than the plaintiffs 1 and 2 for performance of the duties under the Technical Services Agreement, the Project Consultancy Agreement and the Royalty Agreement. Therefore such a negative covenant contained in those agreements could be enforced by the plaintiff by way of an injunction, in view of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.