29 September 2021 | Dimeco v. Central Organisation for Modernization of Workshops | OMP (I) (COMM.) 325/2021 | Vibhu Bakhru J | Delhi High Court | 2021 SCC OnLine SC 4582

While denying a petition under Section 9 ACA, Bakhru J has referred briefly to a few authorities on the purpose of interim relief. The petition was rejected because the court found that no prejudice was caused if the respondent disposed the “Cut to Length” machine it had been supplied earlier by the petitioner under a contract.

The dispute was that, according to the petitioner, full payment had not been made for the machine and though the respondent failed to properly maintain the machine, it sent a rejection memo threatening to recover the payment already made.

The court said that the petitioner may have a monetary claim against the respondents and/or require to defend a monetary claim that the respondents may prefer it would not be prejudiced in any manner by the respondents' disposing the machine in question.

The court referred to Cotton Corporation of India Limited v. United Industrial Bank Limited (1983) 4 SCC 625, Ashwani Minda v. U Shin Ltd., (2020) 3 Arb LR 204, Raffles Design v. Educomp Professional Education Ltd., (2016) 234 DLT 349, Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd., (2007) 7 SCC 125 and Fourie v. Le Roux [2007] 1 WLR 320.

Read the decision here.