Dismissed

M/S Vishwa Inifrastructure and v. M/S Chennai Metropolitan

Madras HC10 Apr 2017OSA/87/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 against an order rejecting interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The High Court held that the case was not fit for an injunction restraining the respondent from awarding sewerage work to a third party, noting that monetary relief is the remedy for breach and injunctions would be against public interest.

What did the court decide?

Application for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act rejected. Appeal and cross petition dismissed.

M/S Vishwa Inifrastructure and Vs M/S… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS.INDIRA BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

and

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶7

O.S.A.No.87 of 2017

¶8

and

¶9

C.M.P.No.5933 of 2017

¶10

M/s.Vishwa Infrastructure &

¶11

Services Pvt. Ltd.,

¶12

rep. by its Authorised Signatory Mr.A.Anil Kumar, Old No.16-B, New No.3, 3^rd West Cross Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030. .. Appellant/Claimant

¶13

.. Appellant/Claimant

¶14

¶15

M/s.Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply

¶16

and Sewerage Board, rep. by its Chief Engineer, NO.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet,

¶17

Chennai-600 002. .. Respondent/Respondent

¶18

Appeal filed under Order XXXVI, Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 09.08.2016 made in O.A.No.621 of 2016 on the file of this Court.

¶19

For Appellant .. Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶23

This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.08.2016 in O.A.No.621 of 2016 of the learned Single Bench rejecting the application of the appellant for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶24

It is not really necessary for us to go into all the contentions raised by the appellant before the learned Single Bench or the findings given by the learned Singe Bench with regard to the same.

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

Suffice it to mention that the main interim relief sought, was of an order of injunction restraining the respondent authority from awarding the contract of providing sewerage facilities to Ambattur Municipality to any third person.

¶27

The learned Single Bench, in paragraph 12, has very rightly observed as under:-

¶28

“12. I must also note that even otherwise, this is not a fit case, in which, I would grant the relief, as prayed for. The reason being the nature of the relief sought by the applicant. The applicant seeks to restrain the respondent from entrusting the subject works to a third party. Admittedly, the respondent is executing the subject works in the larger public interest. The applicant, if, ultimately found to be wronged can always be compensated monetarily.”

¶29

It is well settled that the remedy for wrongful breach of contract lies by way of monetary relief. An injunction of the nature sought for by the appellant would also be against public interest. The learned Single Bench rightly refused to grant the appellant interim orders, as prayed for in the petition.

¶30

The prayer for interim relief is thus declined. The prayer for interim relief having been declined, nothing really remains to be decided in the appeal. The appeal is thus dismissed with the observation that any observations made by us or any observations made by the learned Single Bench which are only prima facie observations shall not sway future proceedings. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.5933 of 2017 is also dismissed.

¶31

bbr

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

¶34

1.The Chief Engineer,

¶35

M/s.Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and sewerage Board, No.1,Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet,Chennai-2.

¶36

2.The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar,Advocate sr.21460

¶38

O.S.A.No.87 of 2017

¶39

nm(co)
ss(25/4/2017)

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S Vishwa Inifrastructure and v. M/S Chennai Metropolitan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vishwa Inifrastructure and v. M/S Chennai Metropolitan

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

S.H.Faud Basha Vs The Commissioner

Saravanan Vs The Commissioner

S.Pushpalatha, Vs The Government of

P.Seethalakshmi Vs The Regional Deputy

Kannan Vs The Regional Deputy

Ar Muthuraman Vs The Member Secretary