IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2618 of 2011(O) ------------------------- CMA.14/2011 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR OS.140/2011 of MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER -------------------- VISWANATHAN NAIR, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, PERUMBODATHU HOUSE, KEDAMANGALAM MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, PROPRIETOR V.J.BUSINESS LINKS, 3 M BUILDING, K.M.K.JUNCTION, NEAR NH-17, PARAVUR TOWN, PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) SRI.S.NIKHIL SANKAR RESPONDENT: -------------------- M/S. RELIANCE WEB WORLD, REGISTERED OFFICE AT MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, S.A.ROAD, KOCHI-682 036. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 2618 of 2011(O) ---------------------------------- APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ EXT.P1. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 1.3.2010 ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE NOTICE 24.02.2011 EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, N.ARUR IN IA. NO.594/2011 DATED 28.05.2011. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 12.07.2011 IN CMA NO.14/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK THOMAS.P. JOSEPH, J ------------------------------------ O.P(C).No. 2618 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated 11th August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.140 of 2011 of the court of learned Munsiff, North Paravur. He sued the respondent/defendant for a decree of prohibitory injunction against respondent unilaterally and illegally terminating Ext.P1, Franchise agreement and for other reliefs. Vide I.A.No.594 of 2011 petitioner sought an order of temporary injunction, against revoking the agreement and forceably evicting him and employees from the schedule room or removing account books etc. That application was opposed by the respondent contending that huge amount is due from petitioner who is a defaulter in terms of the conditions of Franchise agreement. Learned Munsiff by Ext.P3, order dismissed the application accepting contention of the respondent. Petitioner challenge that order before learned District Judge, North Paravur in C.M.A.No.14 of 2011 but without success. Hence this original petition. 2. Learned counsel contended that courts below refused to grant injunction on a finding that petitioner owed huge amount to OP(C). No.2618/11 2 the respondent and in the circumstances, request for injunction cannot be allowed. According to the learned counsel the said finding is not legally correct or justifiable. It is also contended that Ext.P1, agreement provides for arbitration in case of any dispute. 3. Petitioner who has filed the suit and application for injunction and invited adverse orders cannot now claim that agreement provides for arbitration. 4. The question is whether petitioner is entitle to the injunction prayed for. On hearing learned counsel and on going through Ext.P1 agreement, prima facie, I am not inclined to think that temporary injunction could be granted in view of section 41 (e) of Specific Relief Act (“the Act” for short) which says that no injunction can be granted to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically enforced. Section 14 of the Act deals with contracts which are not specifically enforceable. Clause (a) deals with “a contract for the non- performance of which compensation in money is an adequate relief”. Clause (b) refers to “a contract which runs into such minute or numerous details or which is so dependent on the personal qualifications or volition of the parties, or otherwise from its nature is such, that the court cannot enforce specific OP(C). No.2618/11 3 performance of its material terms” such contracts are not specifically enforced. Prima facie, it appears to me that in the circumstances, the court could not have specifically enforced Ext.P1 agreement in which case, to prevent its breach there could not be an order of temporary injunction. 5. The courts below also found from materials placed before it that certain amount is due to the respondent and that the agreement provides for its cancellation by giving notice. Courts below also referred to Ext.A3, notice dated 24.2.2011 as per which respondent terminated the franchise agreement. In my view, judgment/order under challenge cannot be said to be arbitrary, perverse or capricious calling for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. I make it clear that the observations and findings contained in order/judgment under challenge and this judgment shall stand confirmed purely for the disposal of I.A.594/11 and that the trial court has to decide the disputed questions in the suit untrammeled by any such observation or finding. With the above observation this Original Petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOMAS.P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Sou. // True Copy//