SANNIL SETHI Vs. PUNJABI BAGH CLUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is preferred for interim measures. The petitioner had a contract with the respondent No. 1 club (Respondents No. 2and3 are its office bearers) for providing catering services in the Restaurant, Banquets, Bar, Card Room, Tambola Lawn and Family Longue in the club premises. The said agreement was for a term of two years expiring on 28th february, 2010. Clause 19 of the agreement provides that the agreement can be terminated at any time with two months notice if the services are not found satisfactory or for any other reason whatsoever and the decision of the respondent club in this regard shall be final. The agreement also provides for arbitration. The respondent club vide letter dated 30th April, 2009 notified the petitioner that there were deficiencies in the services provided by the petitioner and that the said letter may be treated as one month's notice for termination of the agreement. The respondent club on 24th July, 2009 also invited fresh tenders for awarding the said contract to another person w. e. f. 1st September, 2009. The present petition was filed first on 3rd September, 2009. On enquiry, the counsel for the petitioner states that the other contractor who may have been appointed by the respondent club pursuant to the tender has not taken over as yet and the petitioner continues to provide the catering services. Interim measures are sought in this petition of restraining the respondents from awarding the contract of catering services to any other person and to allow the petitioner to continue with the catering services under the agreement aforesaid. Directions in the form of specific performance of the contract are also sought. One of the reliefs claimed is for directing the respondents to refund the security amount of Rs. 5 lacs deposited by the petitioners with the respondent for providing the catering services in the Coffee Shop of the club and with respect whereto the respondents are stated to have already appointed another contractor.

(2.) ON enquiry, the counsel for the petitioner states that the agreement with respect to the Coffee Shop was different from the agreement on the basis whereof this petition has been filed. However on further enquiry, it is informed that there is no other written agreement with respect to the Coffee shop. This query was made because the petitioner has in the petition inter-alia taken a ground that the respondents on the one hand are not refunding the security deposit aforesaid of the petitioner and on the other hand are seeking to remove the petitioner. It was felt by this court that if the petitioner has already demanded the security deposit, the petitioner could not have at the same time sought directions in the nature of specific performance. However, in view of the stand taken during the hearing, this aspect though felt to be relevant is not considered.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the correspondence between the parties of a date prior to the termination whereunder the petitioner is shown to have been demanding performance by the respondent of the obligations which the respondent club was to perform under the agreement. It is contended that the breach in fact was on the part of the respondent club in not providing the infrastructure as agreed and not on the part of the petitioner.