COX & KINGS LTD. versus INDIAN RLY. CATERING & TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.

COX & KINGS LTD. versus INDIAN RLY. CATERING & TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.

Petitioner not entitled to mandatory injunction or restoration of lease agreement post-termination, as no enforceable right exists to operate the train individually; remedy lies in damages, not in compelling operation. Section 9 does not permit indefinite interim orders to operate a terminated contract.

Parties
Petitioner: Cox & Kings Ltd.; Respondent No.1: Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd.; Joint Venture Company: Royale India Rail Tours Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Appellate: SLP Against Division Bench of Delhi High Court in FAO (os) No. 433 435 of 2011
Outcome
Special Leave Petitions and connected Contempt Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Measures Under Arbitration Act, Mandatory Injunction, Termination of Lease Agreement, Joint Venture Arrangements, Commercial Disputes
Arbitration Commercial Law Interim Measures Under Arbitration Act Mandatory Injunction Termination of Lease Agreement Joint Venture Arrangements Commercial Disputes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cox & Kings Ltd.

Petitioner

Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd.

Respondent No.1

Royale India Rail Tours Ltd.

Joint Venture Company

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Appellate: SLP Against Division Bench of Delhi High Court in FAO (os) No. 433 435 of 2011

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim measures under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be granted to prevent termination of a lease agreement and allow continuation of arrangements for operation of luxury tourist train
  2. 2 Whether petitioner is entitled to mandatory injunction to operate the train post termination
  3. 3 Whether joint venture agreement is akin to partnership, and whether the train is joint venture property

Ratio Decidendi

Petitioner not entitled to mandatory injunction or restoration of lease agreement post-termination, as no enforceable right exists to operate the train individually; remedy lies in damages, not in compelling operation. Section 9 does not permit indefinite interim orders to operate a terminated contract.

Court Disposition

Special Leave Petitions and connected Contempt Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Train to be operated by IRCTC, subject to outcome of arbitral tribunal if appointed.
  • No order required in Contempt Petitions, parties to bear own costs.