DTC Vs. INTERNATIONAL AVENUES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order two proceedings are being decided. The first one is has been filed against the order dt 2. 3. 2009 whereby the respondent herein was allowed, without notice to the appellant herein, to withdraw the OMP 452/2008 which was filed before the learned Single Judge of this court by the respondent under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 and without any directions for restitution of the benefit derived by the respondent under the exparte injunction order dt 29. 8. 08 passed in favour of the respondent. CM 1497/09 seeks revival of the appeal being was filed by the appellant against the grant of the ex parte injunction order dated 29. 8. 2008 and which was not pressed after the orders were reserved by the learned Single Judge on the application of the appellant under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC.

(2.) BOTH these appellate proceedings arise out of and relate to the original OMP 452/2008 filed by the respondent before the learned Single Judge of this court in the original side. In the OMP 452/2008, the respondent prayed FAO (OS)168/2009 and CM No. 1497/09 in for the relief of injunction for restraining the appellant herein from interfering in any manner in the display of commercial advertisements of the respondent on the Bus Queue shelters (BQSs) and Time Keeping Booths (TKBs) displayed by the respondent in the four zones of Delhi namely Shahdara (N) 1, Shahdara (S)- 1 and West Zone-II and the Rohini Zone. The respondent is an advertising agency engaged in the business of outdoor publicity on the sites allotted by various government agencies including the appellant. The respondent was a successful bidder with respect to the said zones and was granted the sole rights to display the advertisements on the BQSs and TKBs of the appellant for a period of 3 years from 16. 9. 2005 so far as the Shahdara and the West Zone is concerned, and from 27. 12. 2005 with respect to Rohini Zone. There were various other earlier disputes between the respondent and the appellant which had earlier also resulted in filing of OMPs by the respondent in this court being OMP 465/2005, 466/2006 and OMP 353/2008. OMP 353/2008 and in which the respondent had failed to secure any interim relief was dismissed as withdrawn on 6. 8. 2008, just 20 days before the subject OMP 452/2008 was filed.

(3.) THE respondent in OMP 452/2008 alleged certain breaches on behalf of the appellant herein, inter alia, pertaining to missing/non-existing shelters, entitlement to its claims seeking adjustment for alleged excess amount paid, seeking adjustment of the security amount lying deposited with the FAO (OS)168/2009 and CM No. 1497/09 in appellant. Since the appellant had threatened to terminate the contract on account of breaches by the respondent No. 1 in payment of the licence fee, this resulted in filing of the OMP 452/2008 on 28. 8. 2008. As already stated, an OMP 353/2008, was dismissed as withdrawn barely around a fortnight before the filing of the OMP 452/2008.