Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Injunction in Arbitration Matter — Petitioner Granted Stay of Arbitral Award and Permission to Display Advertisements Until Contract Expiry. Court Held That Refusal to Grant Injunction Would Render the Arbitration Proceedings Infructuous and That the Balance of Convenience Was in Favor of the Petitioner.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 9
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Petitioner, Sanjay Knit Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in advertisement business, entered into an agreement with the Respondent, Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Limited, on 1st January 1994. Under the agreement, the Petitioner was awarded the contract to construct and erect 70 or more bus-shelters for the National Games, 1994, and was granted exclusive rights to display advertisements on those bus-shelters. The initial period of the agreement was 15 years, extendable by 10 years, and the extension was granted. Subsequently, due to complaints that the 'Y' type bus-shelters were not commuter-friendly, the Respondent asked the Petitioner to replace them with illuminated type bus-shelters. The Petitioner agreed by letter dated 20th May 2004 to remove the old shelters at its own expense and erect new illuminated ones, and also agreed to pay increased rental. The Petitioner constructed 70 illuminated bus-shelters at its cost. Disputes arose, leading to arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal passed an award on 7th October 2017. The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the award, and also filed an application (Exhibit-5) for temporary injunction to stay the award and to allow it to continue displaying advertisements until 31st December 2018, in accordance with the agreement. The District Judge-1, Pune, rejected the application on 30th December 2017. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court observed that the contract period was to expire on 31st December 2018, and if the injunction was not granted, the Section 34 proceedings would become infructuous. The Court noted that the Petitioner had a prima facie case, the balance of convenience was in its favor, and irreparable loss would be caused if the injunction was refused. The Court also considered that the Respondent had not suffered any loss as the advertisements were already displayed. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and granted the injunction as prayed, subject to the Petitioner depositing the arrears of rent as per the award within four weeks.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Temporary Injunction - Stay of Arbitral Award - Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The Petitioner sought injunction to stay the arbitral award and to continue displaying advertisements under the contract. The District Court rejected the application. The High Court held that the refusal to grant injunction would render the Section 34 proceedings infructuous as the contract period would expire. The balance of convenience was in favor of the Petitioner, and irreparable loss would be caused if injunction was not granted. (Paras 1-9)

B) Arbitration Law - Interim Relief - Balance of Convenience - Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The Court considered that the Petitioner had constructed bus-shelters at its own cost and had a prima facie case. The Respondent had not suffered any loss as the advertisements were already displayed. The Court granted stay of the award and allowed the Petitioner to continue displaying advertisements until 31st December 2018, subject to deposit of arrears. (Paras 6-9)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the District Court erred in rejecting the Petitioner's application for temporary injunction seeking stay of the arbitral award and permission to continue displaying advertisements under the contract, pending disposal of the Section 34 petition.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 30th December 2017, and granted the injunction in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c) of the application at Exhibit-5, subject to the Petitioner depositing the arrears of rent as per the award within four weeks from the date of the order.

Law Points

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • Section 34
  • Section 37
  • Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
  • Temporary Injunction
  • Stay of Arbitral Award
  • Balance of Convenience
  • Irreparable Loss
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (02) 46

Writ Petition No.1124 of 2018

2018-02-06

Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.

Mr. P.S. Dani, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Yakshay Chheda and Ms. Devanshi Sethi i/by M/s. ALMT Legal for the Petitioner; Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for the Respondent

Sanjay Knit Pvt. Ltd.

Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Limited

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the District Court rejecting an application for temporary injunction in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Remedy Sought

The Petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 30th December 2017 passed by the District Judge-1, Pune, rejecting its application for temporary injunction, and sought an injunction staying the arbitral award and allowing it to continue displaying advertisements until 31st December 2018.

Filing Reason

The District Court rejected the Petitioner's application for temporary injunction, which was filed to stay the arbitral award and to continue displaying advertisements under the agreement pending the Section 34 petition.

Previous Decisions

The District Judge-1, Pune, by order dated 30th December 2017, rejected the Petitioner's application at Exhibit-5 for temporary injunction in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.986 of 2017.

Issues

Whether the District Court erred in rejecting the Petitioner's application for temporary injunction seeking stay of the arbitral award and permission to continue displaying advertisements under the contract, pending disposal of the Section 34 petition.

Submissions/Arguments

The Petitioner argued that the refusal to grant injunction would render the Section 34 proceedings infructuous as the contract period would expire on 31st December 2018, and that it had a prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favor, and would suffer irreparable loss. The Respondent opposed the injunction, but the High Court noted that the Respondent had not suffered any loss as the advertisements were already displayed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that when a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is pending, the court has the power to grant interim relief to protect the subject matter of the arbitration. The refusal to grant injunction would render the Section 34 proceedings infructuous if the contract period expires. The balance of convenience was in favor of the Petitioner, and irreparable loss would be caused if the injunction was not granted.

Judgment Excerpts

The application at 'Exhibit-5' was filed by the Petitioner herein for granting temporary injunction in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c); that of staying the Award dated 7th October 2017 and to allow him to display the advertisements, as per the contract, till 31st December 2018, in view of the Agreement dated 1st January 1994. The refusal to grant injunction would render the Section 34 proceedings infructuous as the contract period would expire.

Procedural History

The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the arbitral award dated 7th October 2017. Along with the petition, the Petitioner filed an application at Exhibit-5 for temporary injunction. The District Judge-1, Pune, rejected the application on 30th December 2017. The Petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on 6th February 2018, which was allowed by the High Court on the same day.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 34
  • Constitution of India: Article 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal by Flat Purchasers Against Conveyance Deed — No Right to Challenge Vendor's Title. Flat purchasers cannot challenge a conveyance deed executed by the original owner in favor of a developer as they have no right to...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition for Extension of Service as District Commandant, Home Guard. No Legal Right to Continuation in Honorary Post After Expiry of Fixed Term.