- (1.) The two suits are almost identical save the identity of the defendants. The defendant in either case has applied for rejection of the plaint on the primary ground that the respective suit is barred by law. It is submitted on behalf of the two defendants that a judgment on the one matter would govern the other. The documents referred to in this judgment are those found in CS No. 65 of 2009.
(2.) The plaintiff states that the defendant is entitled to duty credits calculated as a percentage of the FOB value of its exports of raw cotton. The plaintiff claims that the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to transfer the duty credit licences that it was to obtain in favour of the plaintiff at a price of 60 per cent of the value of the licences. Such agreement, according to the plaintiff, would be evident from the defendants letter of January 10, 2009 which was erroneously marked as January 10, 2008. The plaintiff says that by a government notification of February 17, 2009, exporters of cotton became entitled to VKUY duty credit scrips for exports made after April 1, 2008. The plaintiff has complained of the breach of the agreement evident from the defendants letter of February 11, 2009 seeking to repudiate the contract. The plaintiff has alleged that the duty credit scrips are not ordinary articles of commerce and that they are of special value and interest to the plaintiff and not easily available in the market. The usual averments are all in place in the plaint before the following reliefs are claimed: "a) Decree for specific performance of the agreement as pleaded in paragraph 2 hereinbefore by directing the defendant to transfer and sale all DEPB/VKUY/FCS licences issued after January 10, 2009 to the defendant, in favour of the plaintiff; b) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from acting in breach of the terms of the agreement of January 10, 2009; c) Decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to transfer all DEPB/VKUY/FCS licences issued to the defendant in favour of the plaintiff at the agreed consideration; d) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from transferring any DEPB/VKUY/FCS licences issued to the defendant after January 10, 2009 to any other person except to the plaintiff at the agreed consideration; e) Decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to disclose the particulars of all applications made and the DEPB/VKUY/FCS licences issued to the defendant after January 10, 2009; f) Receiver; g) Injunction; h) Attachment before judgment; i) Costs; j) Further or other reliefs."
(3.) The defendant asserts that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief at all. The defendant insists that the document bearing the date January 10, 2008 was, indeed, issued on such date and reflects only a standing offer. The defendant contends that even if the plaintiff had accepted such offer there would be no binding contract. The defendant submits that despite the last sentence of its letter of January 10, 2008, no offer or contract of the present kind is irrevocable notwithstanding the offer or contract recording its irrevocable nature. The letter of January 10, 2008 is short and contains the terms that the plaintiff seeks to specifically enforce: "With reference to the discussion the undersigned had with you, we hereby agree as under: 1. That we will transfer our DEPB/VKUY/FCS Licenses to be issued in future against our export of Cotton at a consideration rate of 60%. 2. We will issue necessary representation/ letter, if required, to Govt. for introduction of the above benefits against our exports. This commitment of ours is firm and irrevocable.";