Dismissed

Praxair India Private Limited v. Inox Air Products Private Limited

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2020MFA/2775/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a defendant against a temporary injunction. The injunction restrained the defendant from inducing breach of a supply agreement due to the existence of a valid concluded agreement between the plaintiff and the original supplier.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the defendant under Order 43 Rule 1(r) is dismissed; the temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court stands affirmed.

Praxair India Private Limited Vs Inox Air… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2775 OF 2016 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MERCURY, 2B BLOCK, 6^TH FLOOR, PRESTIGE TECH PARK, OUTER RING ROAD, MARATHALLI, BENGALURU-560013. REPRESENTED BY IT’S CORPORATE LEGAL COUNSEL MR. STHANU SINGH

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY MS. VEDANAYAKI KIRAN .D., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MURALIDHARA C, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

INOX AIR PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CEEJAY HOUSE, 7^TH FLOOR, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI-400013 REPRESENTED BY IT’S COMPANY SECRETARY AND

¶13

¶14

AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. NARENDRA MEHRA

¶15

ISMT LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT LUNKAD TOWERS, VIMAN NAGAR, PUNE-411014. REPRESENTED BY IT’S MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. VENKATESH DALWAI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;

¶18

SRI. M.V.SUNDARARAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶19

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2016 PASSED IN I.A.NO.II AND I.A.NO.III IN O.S.NO.3833/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, ALLOWING I.A.NO.II AND III FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

This appeal is filed by the defendant No.1 in OS No.3833/2015 challenging the order dated 05.01.2016 passed by the XIX Additional City Civil and

¶23

¶24

Session Judge, Bengaluru City, by which I.A.Nos.II and III were allowed and the defendant No.1 was restrained from committing any act which amounted to breach of the job work agreement and liquid oxygen supply agreement both dated 30.04.2013 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2. The Trial Court also restrained the defendant No.1 from attempting to induce breach of the job work agreement and liquid oxygen supply agreement both dated 30.04.2013 between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 in any manner whatsoever.

¶25

The facts in a nutshell are that an agreement

¶26

dated 30.04.2013 was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 for job work and supply of liquid oxygen. In the meanwhile, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 entered into an agreement for supply of oxygen which was dated 16.03.2015. The plaintiff therefore, apprehending that the defendant No.2 might commit

¶27

¶28

breach of the agreement dated 30.04.2013, filed a suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.3833/2015 and also

¶29

filed two applications for an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from committing any act which would amount to breach of the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2.

¶30

The Trial Court after considering the

¶31

material on record, found that the agreement dated 30.04.2013 between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 was concluded and therefore, the subsequent agreement entered into between the defendant Nos.1 and 2 amounts to breach of the agreement dated 30.04.2013. Therefore, the Trial Court thought it fit to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from indulging in any act that could have the effect of indulging in breach of the agreement dated 30.04.2013.

¶32

¶33

It is now stated at the Bar that the defendant

¶34

No.2 had also filed a suit before the District Court in Pune which ultimately ended up before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on the Civil Appellate Court side in Arbitration Appeal No.42/2015. It is stated that the defendant No.2 and the plaintiff have amicably resolved the dispute and have agreed to abide with the terms of the supply and job work agreement dated 30.04.2013. As a result, the agreement dated 30.04.2013, is restored and consequently the mutual rights and obligations of the defendant No.2 under the agreement dated 30.04.2013 are revived. Consequently, the defendant No.1 cannot do or cause to be done any such acts that could have the effect of committing breach of the agreement dated 30.04.2013.

¶35

The learned counsel for the plaintiff

¶36

submitted that the defendant No.1 has already removed all the machineries and other paraphernalia required for

¶37

¶38

the supply of liquid oxygen to the defendant No.2 and therefore, no purpose would be served in continuing this appeal.

¶39

The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 submits that the plaintiff has now amended the suit which was initially filed for perpetual injunction and the plaintiff has sought for damages on account of the purported breach of the agreement dated 30.04.2013 and that the suit is pending consideration.

¶40

Once the plaintiff and the defendant No.2

¶41

accept that there was a valid / concluded agreement between them, one of the party to the agreement cannot unilaterally withdraw from the agreement. The Courts

¶42

are entitled to grant orders of temporary injunction restraining such erring party from committing breach of the agreement. The Trial Court after having considered the subsistence of the agreement dated 30.04.2013 and consequent attempt by the defendant No.1 to desecrate

¶43

¶44

the agreement by entering into another agreement with the defendant No.1 for the very same purpose has rightly granted an order of temporary injunction.

¶45

There is no merit in this appeal and the

¶46

appeal is dismissed.

¶47

Sd/- JUDGE

¶48

Praxair India Private Limited v. Inox Air Products Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praxair India Private Limited v. Inox Air Products Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Inayathulla

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Inayathulla

Smt. R. Suchitra Vs R.T. Shivu

Ms Farah Oomerbhoy Vs Niki Lawyer

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri. Gangi Reddy

Sri Ehwarachari Vs Smt Sarojamma