chandka 1 APP-1038-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 1038 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1336 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 1237 OF 2010 Elite Brands Private Limited ..Appellant versus Solar Time Limited & Anr. ..Respondents Ms. N. S. Nappinai and Pradnya Kadam for Appellant. None for Respondents. CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. 24 January 2011. P.C. : The Appeal is taken on board by consent. 2. This Appeal arises out of an ad interim order of a learned Single Judge dated 13 July 2010. By the order the application for ad interim relief was rejected. The learned Single Judge held that the agreement in chandka 2 APP-1038-10 pursuance of which the Appellant was appointed as Agent and the Sourcing Agreement were by the very nature determinable and therefore, upon termination an injunction could not be granted in view of the provisions of Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act. On behalf of the Respondents reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Amritsar Gas Service & Ors.1 3. We have perused the record with the assistance of the learned counsel. The contention of the Appellant is that it was only the Sourcing Agreement which was terminated and not the Agency agreement. Prima facie however it appears from the e-mail dated 26 January 2010 that the Respondents, on the basis of alleged breaches of the Agreement dated 19 September 2008, terminated the distribution, marketing and representation rights. The Agreement dated 19 September 2008 is the Sourcing Agreement. However, the Respondents also annexed a letter sent to various factories. That letter of 20 January 2010 specifically refers also to the termination of the agency. Therefore, prima facie at this stage we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not in error in declining ad interim relief. However it has been contended on behalf of the Appellant that the Appellant would seek to establish that even after the termination, the Respondents continue to deal with the Appellant. We are of the view that all these matters would have to 1 (1991)1 SCC 533 chandka 3 APP-1038-10 be urged at the hearing of the Notice of Motion which is still pending. Therefore, we decline to interfere with the impugned order refusing ad interim relief. However, we clarify that all the observations contained in the impugned order and in the present Order are confined only to the disposal of the Appeal against the ad interim order and will not come in the way of the hearing of the Notice of Motion. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.) (Anoop V. Mohta, J.)