JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. This is an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner was appointed as single point distributor by the Delhi Vidyut Board which is the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent (North Delhi Power Limited) (NDPL). The single point distribution connection number was K.39020161508 and pertained to Shardhanand Colony, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
2. The present petition has been filed as the petitioner contends that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is governed by an agreement dated 08.10.2000 which contains an arbitration clause. Disputes arose between the parties and ultimately it resulted in the termination of the agreement on 3.11.004. The disputes that have arisen between the parties are also the subject matter of the arbitration before the sole Arbitrator Mr H.C. Aggarwal and the proceedings are continuing.
3. This petition has been filed seeking the relief that the respondent be restrained from giving effect to the termination letter dated 3.11.2004. Alternative reliefs in the form of preventing the respondent from taking over the distribution of electricity in the said colony itself or from giving it to any other person are prayed for. It is also prayed that status quo ante as existing prior to 3.11.2004 be restored.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that such a petition would not lie inasmuch if an injunction is granted then it would virtually amount to specifically enforcing an agreement which has already been terminated. The additional terms and conditions of contract which were appended to the said agreement dated 08.10.2000 specifically provided by virtue of clause 7 thereof for termination of the contract on default. In view of the fact that the contract itself was determinable, he submitted that this petition under Section 9 would not be maintainable and any relief as prayed for cannot be granted, particularly in view of the clear position as stated in the Division Bench Decision of this court in the case of Rajasthan Breweries Ltd v. Stroh Brewery Company AIR 200 DELHI 450. In the said decision, it is clearly stated as under:
14. The effect of breach of a contract by a party seeking to specifically enforce the contract under the Indian law is enshrined in Section 16(c) read with Section 41(e)of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Clause (e) of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act provides that injunction cannot be granted to prevent the breach of contract, the performance of which would not be specifically enforced. Clause (c) of Section 41 enumerates the nature of contracts, which could not be specifically enforced. Clause (c) to sub-Section (1) of Section 14 says that a contract which is in its nature determinable cannot be specifically enforced. Learned Single Judge thus was justified in saying that if it is found that a contract which by its very nature is determinable, the same not only cannot be enforced but in respect of such a contract no injunction could also be granted and this is mandate of law. This, however, is subject to an exception, as provided in Section 43 that where a contract comprises an affirmative agreement to do a certain act, coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, not to do a certain act, the circumstances that the court is unable to compel specific performance of the affirmative agreement shall not preclude it from granting an injunction to perform the negative agreement.
20. Even in the absence of specific clause authorising and enabling either party to terminate the agreement in the event of happening of the events specified therein, from the very nature of the agreement, which is private commercial transaction, the same could be terminated even without assigning any reason by serving a reasonable notice. At the most, in case ultimately it is found that termination was bad in law or contrary to the terms of the agreement or of any understanding between the parties or for any other reason, the remedy of the appellants would be to seek compensation for wrongful termination but not a claim for specific performance of the agreements and for that view of the matter learned Single Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant had sought for an injunction seeking to specifically enforce the agreement. Such an injunction is statutorily prohibited with respect of a contract, which is determinable in nature. The application being under the provisions of Section 9(ii)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, relief was not granted in view of Section 14(i) (c) read with Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. It was rightly held that other clauses of Section 9 of the Act shall not apply to the contract, which is otherwise determinable in respect of which the prayer is made specifically to enforce the same.
5. In view of the clear position of law as stated above in the aforesaid decision, the reliefs claimed in the present application under Section 9 cannot be granted and, therefore, this petition stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.