M/S Ambara Constructions vs. Mr Shashank Suresh

Held

The High Court held that the Trial Court did not commit an error in rejecting the interim injunction application. The Court noted that the dispute revolved around the extent of construction completed and the amount spent, which necessitated a full-fledged trial. Citing Order 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, the Court stated that if the dispute is payable in terms of money, the question of invoking Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 does not arise. The Court also referred to its own previous judgment in MFA No. 4806/2018, holding that for recovery of money, an application under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC for security is appropriate, not Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. The Court found that the Trial Court correctly observed that stopping construction on a partially built structure could diminish its value. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, but the Trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit within one year. Liberty was granted to the appellant to file an application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC for security.

Facts

M/s Ambara Constructions (appellant) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,09,20,484/- against Mr. Shashank Suresh (respondent) and sought an interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC to restrain the respondent from entrusting the construction work of 'Gallery House' to any other contractor. The appellant and respondent had entered into a Construction Contract Agreement on 21.08.2020. The appellant claimed the construction was almost complete, but the respondent disputed the extent of work done and the amount claimed, alleging the appellant stopped work in November 2022 and was claiming an incorrect GST rate. The Trial Court rejected the interim injunction application, holding that the dispute was primarily monetary and could be compensated, and that stopping construction would diminish the property's value. The appellant appealed this order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the interim injunction application (I.A.No.1) and whether its order requires interference by this Court? Petitioner's Arguments: The appellant argued that Clause 11 of the agreement stipulated that the respondent must obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the appellant before engaging another contractor after full and final settlement. The appellant contended that the Trial Court failed to consider this aspect and that appointing another contractor without certifying the appellant's completed work would hinder recovery of the balance amount. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that payments exceeding Rs. 2 crore had already been made against an agreed amount of Rs. 1,72,36,485/-. They contended that any dispute should be adjudicated by the Trial Court and that this Court should not pass an order restraining further construction, as it would diminish the building's value. The respondent also argued that the Trial Court rightly concluded that monetary compensation would suffice.