2019 (8) TMI 1852 - HC - Companies Law

Seeking grant of interim relief - denial of such interim relief has resulted in serious inconvenience and hardship to the airlines in general and public at large - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the appellant-writ petitioner is a licensee of respondent No.1 and the duration of the license came to an end on 22.03.2019. There is no renewal/extension of license in favour of the appellant-writ petitioner. There is also no dispute with regard to arbitration clause in the license agreement. The transaction entered into in between the parties is purely a commercial one and no element of public interest is involved. There is no obligation on the part of respondent No.1 to extend the period of license from time to time, as per the terms agreed in between them. Since the license of the appellant-writ petitioner expired long back on 22.03.2019 and a notice dated 27.06.2019 was issued by the respondent No.1 to the appellant-writ petitioner to vacate the premises by 30.06.2019, there is no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the appellant-writ petitioner and no irreparable loss would be caused to the appellant-writ petitioner. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of interim relief by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13298 of 2019.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant-writ petitioner, a service provider to airlines, filed an appeal under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against an interim order of the High Court. The appellant was aggrieved by the learned Single Judge's decision to decline interim relief and dismiss the applications. The appellant contended that despite holding a statutory license and paying fees regularly, the respondent discriminated against them. The respondent issued a notice to vacate the premises, leading to the appellant filing applications seeking permission to continue operations and suspend the eviction order. The learned Single Judge dismissed the applications, prompting the appeal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the denial of interim relief caused inconvenience and hardship to airlines and the public. They emphasized the existence of a service contract between the appellant and airlines, urging that they had a prima facie case and the balance of convenience favored them. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel stated that the appellant's license had expired, and they had no right to continue in the premises. The learned Single Judge had provided detailed reasons for dismissing the applications and prayed for the writ appeal's dismissal.

The key issue for determination was whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the applications seeking interim relief. The High Court noted that the appellant's license had expired on 22.03.2019, with no renewal or extension granted. As the agreement was commercial, without public interest, and with no obligation for the respondent to extend the license, the Court found no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favor of the appellant. Since the appellant had no valid license and was served a notice to vacate, the appeal was deemed meritless and dismissed. Costs were not awarded, and any pending petitions were also dismissed.