S.K. SAHNI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant / plaintiff being dis -satisfied by the order dated 10.10.96, passed in Misc. appeal No. 56/96 by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Murwara, Katni, District -Jabalpur, vacating the order granted by the Court below in favour of the present applicant on 19.8.96 by the learned Civil Judge, has preferred this petition.

(2.) BRIEF facts necesary for disposal of the present matter are that an agreement was executed between the parties under which the plaintiff was awarded Stall No. 2 for providing catering facility to the railway passengers. As the respondent / railway cancelled the said agreement and was trying to interfere with the rights of the plaintiff and as the matter/ dispute was referable to an Arbitrator, the present applicant moved an application under Section 20 of Indian Arbitration Act. With the said petition, and application under Section 41 of the Act read with Second Schedule of the Act was also filed, seeking the relief that during the pendency of the petition and arbitration proceedings, the respondents be restrained from interfering with the possession of the applicant. In the petition, it was contended that the applicant had engaged sufficient number of waiters, vendors, but because of the political interference and illegal strike made by the Union, he was not permitted to work properly. He submits that he made various complaints to police and brought this fact to the notice of the railway authorities, but none helped him. He submits that after some time he could come out of the problem and was regularly providing the services to the passengers, therefore, and as the railway authorities had no authority to cancel the agreement unilaterally, the railway authorities be restrained form interfering with his working and possession.

(3.) THE trial Court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has a prima -facie case; the balance of convenience lies in his favour and if the injunction prayed for was not granted in favour of the applicant, he would suffer irreparable injury. By its order dated 19.8.96, an injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff.