NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD Vs. SANGHL INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals being inter-connected were taken up for hearing together and are being dispose.d of by this common judgment.

(2.) The plaintiff-Company is the appellant in these appeals. It filed an interlocutory application praying for a direction restraining the respondent- Company from proceeding further with construction either by themselves or through others without quantifying the work executed by it inclusive of claims and settling them. The learned Trial Judge by reason of the order impugned before us has rejected the said prayer.

(3.) Sri M.S.K. Sastry, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant inter alia submitted that having regard to the provisions of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, (for short 'the Act') the learned Trial Judge ought to have granted injunction. In this connection our attention had been drawn to the letter dated 5-10-1998 by the respondent-Company to the appellant herein on the basis whereof it was submitted that as the contract had not been terminated the respondent could not hand over the work to any other person. The learned Counsel would contend that payments have not been received nor any measurement of the work done by the appellant company had been taken and as such interest of justice demanded that an order of injunction should be issued. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on Frank Simoes Advertising (P) Ltd, v. Hada Leasing and Industries Ltd. and another and Robert v. M/s. Roshini Enterprises and anoiher.