Every judicial authority is required to assign reasons for the conclusions drawn by it. Reasons are the life links - No interim injunction should be granted on cryptic lines “Heard the counsel for petitioner. Perused records. Upon consideration of the matter basing on the prima facie case in balance of convenience and also irreparable loss leaning towards the petitioner it is found desirable to issue Interim Injunction until further orders. Issue Interim Injunction accordingly restraining the respondent from terminating the general services agreement dt.01-10-2014 vide agreement No.CW 558370 including amended agreement dt.04-02-2015, and notice. Posted to 15- 02-2016. Order 39 R.3(a) CPC shall be complied with. = No reasons are assigned why a prima facie case is said to have been made out, where the balance of convenience lies and as to the nature of irreparable loss that might occasion to the petitioner in the O.P. Every judicial authority is required to assign reasons for the conclusions drawn by it. Reasons are the life links. They offer guidance as to on what lines the mind of the authority has worked. Since, no reasons are assigned by the Court while passing this order, we have been left guessing. The petitioner is an Information Technology provider, which employs a large number of employees, as its force members. It had entered into an agreement with the respondent herein, who is the petitioner in the O.P. which runs a restaurant and also provides food supplies services. Therefore, a careful assessment as to whether it is really expedient to permit such an agreement to hold the field, pending the O.P or not, ought to have been assessed carefully. Only on the short ground, we set-aside the docket order passed on 03.02.2016 by the Court below and restore the O.P. together with any interlocutory applications lying therein for consideration afresh, in accordance with law and duly assigning reasons for its conclusion

CMA 101 / 2016
CMASR 4358 / 2016CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
M/S BA CONTINUUM INDIA PRIVATE LTD., HYDERABAD  VSM/S S R RESTAURANT, SECUNDERABAD
PET.ADV. : PAVAN KUMARRESP.ADV. : VIJAYSEN REDDY
SUBJECT: ARBITRATION ACTDISTRICT:  HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO AND THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
C.M.A. NO.101 OF 2016 ORDER:
(As per Hon’ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao)
Heard Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sushanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. While, we admire the able way Sri Sushanth has presented his case on behalf of the respondent herein, but however, we find that the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, who passed the impugned order on 03.02.2016 has not left us with much of a discretion.
The respondent was the petitioner in O.P.No.292 of 2016 moved under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking grant of perpetual injunction restraining the respondent therein from terminating the general services agreement dated 01.10.2014 together with its amended agreement dated 04.02.2015.
We are not adverting to the various contentions that have been canvassed on either side, as we are disposing this C.M.A on a very short ground.
The order passed by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on 03.02.2016 reads as under:
“Heard the counsel for petitioner. Perused records. Upon consideration of the matter basing on the prima facie case in balance of convenience and also irreparable loss leaning towards the petitioner it is found desirable to issue Interim Injunction until further orders. Issue Interim Injunction accordingly restraining the respondent from terminating the general services agreement dt.01-10-2014 vide agreement No.CW 558370 including amended agreement dt.04-02-2015, and notice. Posted to 15- 02-2016. Order 39 R.3(a) CPC shall be complied with.”
No reasons are assigned why a prima facie case is said to have been made out, where the balance of convenience lies and as to the nature of irreparable loss that might occasion to the petitioner in the O.P. Every judicial authority is required to assign reasons for the conclusions drawn by it. Reasons are the life links. They offer guidance as to on what lines the mind of the authority has worked. Since, no reasons are assigned by the Court while passing this order, we have been left guessing. The petitioner is an Information Technology provider, which employs a large number of employees, as its force members. It had entered into an agreement with the respondent herein, who is the petitioner in the O.P. which runs a restaurant and also provides food supplies services. Therefore, a careful assessment as to whether it is really expedient to permit such an agreement to hold the field, pending the O.P or not, ought to have been assessed carefully. Only on the short ground, we set-aside the docket order passed on 03.02.2016 by the Court below and restore the O.P. together with any interlocutory applications lying therein for consideration afresh, in accordance with law and duly assigning reasons for its conclusion.
We, hope and trust, that the matter will be heard and decided on merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this order at the earliest. Even otherwise, learned counsel on both sides are granted liberty to file appropriate memo before the Court bringing to it on record, the order passed by us today in this C.M.A which can be acted upon. With this, the appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any shall also stand closed. No costs. _______________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO ______________________________________ JUSTICE DR. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO Date:01.04.2016 sp note: cc today b/o sp

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.