This is an arbitration case in which the High Court of Delhi dismissed the petition as the petition has no merit.
This present petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 relating to a dispute between the parties with respect to termination of the Joint Venture Agreement dated 25th October 2011.
The parties entered into a contract for the conduct of some particular exhibitions of the respondent in India, whereby the petitioner was required to act as the local partner of the respondent. Due to material breach of the terms of the contract by the petitioner, the respondent exercised its right under the termination clause of the contract and issued a notice of termination to the petitioner. The petitioner disputed the validity of the notice of termination issued by the respondent, alleging that it was not properly issued, and approached the Delhi High Court under section 9 of the Arbitration Act to seek a two-fold remedy by way of interim measures:
The issue was in this case, whether an injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act could be granted to revive or restore a contract that is specifically determinable in nature and has been duly terminated?
The High Court of Delhi upheld the well-established legal position that specific performance of a determinable contract cannot be enforced, due to the specific bar under section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The remedies sought by the petitioner would in essence amount to specific enforcement of the contract between the parties, which is a determinable contract i.e., a contract that can be put to an end.
Upon review of several judgments on the subject, as brought forth by the respondent, the Court concluded that it cannot exercise interference under section 9 of the Arbitration Act to grant a injunction against the operation of termination, or in the alternative, enforcement of the terminated agreement.