MODERN FOOD INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED Vs. KRISHNA BOTTLERS PRIVATE LIMITED
LAWS(DLH)-1983-3-2
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on March 30,1983

MODERN FOOD INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
KRISHNA BOTTLERS PRIVATE LIMITED Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

S K GUPTA VS. HYDERABAD ALLWYN LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1987-10-26] [REFERRED]
FRANK SIMOES ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED VS. HADA LEASING AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1988-5-26] [REFERRED]
MODI RUBBER LTD VS. GUARDIAN INTERNATIONAL CORP [LAWS(DLH)-2007-3-151] [REFERRED TO]
MAKHANLAL NATTA VS. TRIDIB GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-1993-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYA MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. BIKASH CHANDRA DEB [LAWS(CAL)-1995-6-21] [REFERRED TO]
SYMED LABS LTD. VS. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-294] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT BOTTLING COMPANY LIMITED VS. COCA COLA CO [LAWS(SC)-1995-8-53] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT BOTTLING COMPANY LTD. VS. COCA COLA COMPANY [LAWS(BOM)-1995-3-107] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

CHARANJIT ALWAR - (1.)On 8th March, 1983, for reasons to be recorded later on,. I allowed I. A. No. 793 of 1983 filed by the defendant herein under Order 39, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking vacation of the ex parte ad interim injunction passed on 16th February, 1983, and thus dismissed the plaintiff's applition, I. A. No. 719 of 1983.
(2.)The plaintiff therein called 'the petitioner') Moden Food Industries Ltd., is the owner of trade mark '77' an aerated water soft drink. It has filed a petition under Section 20 of the Indian Arbrtration Act seeking that the original arbitration agreement contained in the contract between it and M/s. Shri Krishna Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. be filed in Court and the disputes raised by it in para 16 of the petition be referred to arbitration in accordance with, arbitration clause of the contract.
(3.)It is the ease of the petitioner that it has entered, into a franchise agreements with different bottlers in various parts of the country. Under those agreements it sells concentrate for manufacturing "TT" to the bottlers who actually manufacture and bottle the said aerated water drink and distribute it in their respective terrilories. According to it, it had entered into such a franchise agreement with the respondent, a private limited company, carrying on the business of manufacturing, bottling and distributing soft drinks at Hyderabad. The agreement executed between them on 17th March, 1982, was valid for a period of five years in the first instance. By another agreement of the same date between them the petitioner in addition was to supply the concentrate of another aerated water soft drink known as "Tingler". The allegations are that the respondent on one pretext or the other not only failed to bottle and market the soft drink '77',. but has now entered into an agreement with another company M/s. McDowell Company to bottle and market their aerated water soft drink known as 'Thril' in contravention of the said agreement of 17th March, 1982. Further, the case is that that soft drink is absolutely akin, similar in flavour, taste etc. to '77'. The grievance of the petitioner is that the defendant (herein called 'the respondent') by virtue of the existing agreement between them, .is prohibited from manufacturing or selling or in any manner dealing with any other product which is akin in taste, colour and flavour or design to the beverage of the petitioner-company without its written permission, and that because of that agreement between the parties the petitioner could not enter into a franchise agreement for the territory of Hyderabad with other bottlers. It is further pleaded that "in case the respondent does not manufacture and market the products of the petitioner in its territory during the current year, the petitioner's products would not become known in that territory and it would suffer huge and irreparable losses". The toss has been quantified at Rs. 60 lacs for the current season.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.