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

Citation: [2012] 7 S.C.R. 19 · Decided: 05-07-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 7 S.C.R. 19 
COX & KINGS LTD. 
V. 
INDIAN RLY. CATERING & TOURISM CORPORATION 
LTD.& ANR. 
(Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) Nos. 965-967 of 2012) 
JULY 5, 2012 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - s. 9 - Grant of 
interim measure - Permissibility - Luxury Tourist Train project C 
- Expression of Interest floated by Respondent (IRCTC) for a 
Joint Venture partner- to operate, manage and run the train -
Petitioner selected as Joint Venture shareholder - Petitioner 
and Respondent became equal shareholders in a Joint 
Venture Company in terms of a Memorandum of o 
Understanding (MoU) - Luxury Tourist Train leased by 
Respondent to the Joint Venture Company - Disputes 
resulting in subsequent termination of the lease arrangement 
by Respondent - Petitioner initiated proceedings u/s.9 for 
staying the termination of the lease agreement and also to 
E 
allow the arrangements to continue for sometime - Single 
Judge of the High Court deemed it fit to appoint a Receiver, 
as an interim measure, in the public interest, to prevent 
discontinuation of the running of the train for which bookings 
had already been made, and disposed of the s. 9 application, 
inter alia, by directing the train to run under the supervision 
of the Receiver for certain period - Division Bench, however, 
F 
set aside the arrangements made by the Single Judge and 
allowed the appeal preferred by Respondent - On appeal, 
held: Petitioner was not entitled to question termination of the 
G 
lease agreement as by itself it had no existence as far as the 
running of the train was concerned and it was not a party to 
the proceedings - Petitioner attempted to either restore the 
lease agreement, which had been terminated, or to create a 
19 
H 
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20121 7 S.C.R. 
A fresh agreement to enable the Petitioner to operate the luxury 
train indefinitely, till a decision was arrived at in s. 9 Application 
- No doubt the Petitioner invested large sums of money in the 
project, but that cannot entitle it to pray for and obtain a 
mandatory order of injunction to operate the train once the 
B lease agreement! arrangement had been terminated -
Petitioner's remedy, if any, would lie in an action for damages 
against IRCTC for breach of any of the terms and conditions 
of the Joint Venture Agreement and the MoU. 
C 
The Ministry of Railways (Rail Mantralaya), Railway 
Board, approved the proposal submitted by respondent 
no.1-lndian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd. 
[IRCTC], for operating a Luxury Tourist Train on a Pan-
India route within India. Such proposal was made in 
pursuance of an Expression of Interest floated by the 
D respondent for a Joint Venture partner for the said 
Luxury Transit Train Project, to operate, manage and run 
the said train. The Petitioner came to be selected as the 
Joint Venture shareholder for the operation of the Luxury 
Tourist Train Project. In terms of a Memorandum of 
E Understanding, the Petitioner and the Respondent 
became equal shareholders in a Joint Venture Company. 
The Luxury Tourist Train was leased by the Respondent 
to the Joint Venture Company for a period of 15 years, 
which could be extended by another period of 10 years 
F on conditions to be mutually agreed between the 
Petitioner and the Respondent. Whilst the Joint Venture 
operations were being conducted, certain disputes arose 
between the shareholders regarding the working of the 
Joint Venture Agreement and the Memorandum of 
G Understanding, which ultimately resulted in the 
termination of the lease arrangement by the Respondent, 
IRCTC. On account of such termination of the lease 
agreement, the Petitioner initiated proceedings under 
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for 
H staying the termination of the lease agreement and also 
COX & KINGS LTD. v. INDIAN RLY. CATERING & 
21 
TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. 
to allow the arrangements to continue for a specified 
A 
period, subject to such terms and conditions as may be 
imposed by the Court. 
B 
The Single Judge of the High Court deemed it fit to 
appoint a Receiver, as an interim measure, in the public 
interest;- to prevent discontinuation of the running of the 
train for which bookings had already been made, and 
disposed of the Section 9 application, inter alia, by 
directing that the train would continue to be run under 
the supervision of the Receiver for certain period. The 
C 
Division Bench, h

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.