- (1.) The subject suit has been filed by the plaintiff M/s. National Research Development Corporation (NRDC) seeking reliefs of rendition of accounts and injunction against the defendant from using the technology given under the licence agreement dated 27.01.1983 for manufacturing of Monocrotophos Technical including Monocrotophos 36 WSC without complying with the terms of the licence agreement.
(2.) Vide licence agreement dated 27.01.1983, Ex. P-1, plaintiff gave to the defendant the knowhow for the manufacture of Monocrotophos Technical including Monocrotophos 36 WSC as right in the said invention was granted to the plaintiff. The detailed terms and conditions on which licence is granted are mentioned in Ex. P-1, and of which the clauses pertaining to consideration payable to the plaintiff are clauses 1 & 3. Plaintiff was to get a premium of Rs. 5 lakhs and thereafter royalty @ 2% of the net ex-factory sale price of the material manufactured. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant kept on filing nil returns i.e. commercial production did not start for commencement of payment of royalty, however, when an officer of the plaintiff Sh. Ashwani Kumar Kohli, PW-2 visited the premises of the defendant in 1995, it transpired that the defendant was selling products manufactured by the technology supplied by the plaintiff at least w.e.f. financial year ending 31.3.1992. The visit of this officer to the premises of the defendant is dated 9-10.10.1995. The subject suit thereafter came to be filed on 25.11.1997.
(3.) In the written statement the defendant has contended that the technology supplied by the plaintiff was defective and, therefore, the defendant was not liable to make any payment to the plaintiff. The defendant claims that on account of the fault of the plaintiff in not giving the requisite technology the defendant had to enter into another agreement seeking outside expert's help and only whereafter trial production commenced in around 1988. In para 12 of the preliminary objection in written statement it is pleaded that the plaintiff at best entitled to royalty for the year ended 31.3.1993. The grant of the licence Ex. P-1 in favour of the defendant by the plaintiff is not disputed. It is also pleaded in the written statement that the licence agreement stood frustrated by the acts of the plaintiff because the invention given by the plaintiff was of no use to the defendant. It was pleaded that in fact because of the inadequate/faulty technology defendant suffered losses.;