Manjit Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—The Plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the orders dated 05.10.2010 and 02.12.2010 passed by the Courts below, whereby an application for grant of ad-interim injunction has been dismissed.

The Plaintiff was given a contract for transportation of the food grains, but the said contract was terminated for the reason that the area of village Ramnagaria does not fall within the area of contract awarded to the Petitioner i.e. 8 Kms. from the Sirsa mandi.

The learned Appellate Court has inter alia recorded a finding that the agreement contained arbitration clause and that it is immaterial that Ramnagaria is part of Sirsa mandi or not as it is nowhere mentioned in the proceedings of the meeting at Sr. No. 42. Learned first Appellate Court also recorded that the Petitioner shall not suffer any irreparable loss as the Petitioner can claim compensation for the loss suffered.

The reasoning given by the first Appellate Court cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity. The Petitioner is claiming right to execute contract. The violation of the transportation contract gives right to the Petitioner to claim compensation. In terms of Section 41(e) and (h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as the Petitioner has the efficacious remedy and that breach of such contract is not specifically enforceable.

In view of the arbitration clause in the contract, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be invoked in terms of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

In view of the said facts, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Courts below, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.