LAWS(CAL)-2012-12-58

JESSOP AND CO. LTD Vs. ABHISHEK ENGINEERING

Decided On December 18, 2012
Jessop And Co. Ltd Appellant
V/S
Abhishek Engineering Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal would relate to an ad interim order passed by the learned District Judge, Barasat in Miscellaneous Case No.155 of 2012 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 inter alia, staying the notice of termination of the contract. The learned Judge observed as follows :-

(2.) THE facts would depict, the appellant Jessop and Company Limited was entrusted by the Bihar Government for renovation of eighty seven number of barrage gates at Sone Barrage, Indra Puri in Rohtas district. The Jessop entrusted a part of the job to M/s. Abhishek Engineering, the respondent as a sub-contractor. Jessop terminated the contract on the ground, Abhishek could not perform their job under the contract in time. They abused the officials in filthy language. They insulted the officials at the site for which complaint was lodged with the local Police Station. Abhishek abruptly withdrew the work force. Consequent upon such breach Jessop terminated the contract and threatened Abhishek for recovery of the damage. Being aggrieved, Abhishek demanded arbitration in terms of the Arbitration Clause stipulated in the agreement and approached the learned District Judge for an order restraining effect of the letter dated September 22, 2012. The relevant extract of the letter is quoted below :-

(3.) IN the case of Hyderabad Cricket Association (Supra), the agreement was irrevocable. The association issued a communication asking the other company under the contract to forego their rights and privileges that they were entitled to under the agreement. The Apex Court in considering the peculiar facts involved therein retained the order of injunction considering the balance of conveyance. The facts involved herein would completely differ that would keep the proposition at bay. In case of N. Srinivasa (Supra), the contract involved immovable property. Such contract could be specifically enforced. This fact was duly noted by the Apex Court. We wonder how this decision would have any application. Paragraph 31 being relevant herein is quoted below :-