Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) THE suit is for declaration that the letter of the defendant refusing to renew the contract between the parties is illegal, wrongful, void and liable to be set aside and for a decree for damages and in the alternative an inquiry into the damages suffered by the plaintiff and a decree in respect thereof.
(2.) THE plaintiff claims to carry on business as the sole proprietor of M/s. Shivisidh Enterprises. She claims that she was appointed by the defendant as its commission agent on the various terms and conditions as would appear from the letter dated September 20, 1983. The plaintiff had performed her obligations under such contract. The plaintiff had generated business for the defendant in the eastern region of India which such region remained unexplored by the defendant. The plaintiff claims that, between the period 1983 to 1986 she had procured various orders for the defendant. The plaintiff had also contacted various potential customers on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff had incurred diverse expenses on account of the promotion of the defendant and had also undertaken business work for the defendant in terms of the contract. She claims that, the defendant had illegally and wrongfully reduced the commission rate on April 1, 1985. She had applied for renewal of the contract which was rejected by the defendant by a letter dated December 1, 1986 illegally and wrongfully. She claims that, the refusal of the defendant to renew the contract should be declared as null and void. She claims compensation for the loss and damages suffered by her and in the alternative an inquiry with regard thereto and a decree for damages as may be found upon such inquiry. The defendant has filed a written statement. The defendant has pleaded that this Hon'ble Court lacks jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit in the written statement. The defendant claims that, the agency agreement between the parties was terminated by the defendant. The defendant also claims that, the accounts between the parties stood settled as on March 31, 1986 and that no amount is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant contends that, a portion of the claims of the suit is barred by the laws of limitation. The defendant also denies the material allegations made against it in the plaint.
(3.) BY the Order dated March 17, 2011 seven issues were framed for trial. Such seven issues are as follows: - (i) Has the Court territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? (ii) Was the termination of agency agreement dated 20th September, 1983 illegal as alleged by the plaintiff? (iii) Whether the agency agreement was renewable as stated in the plaint? (iv) Did the parties enter into any agreement for Rock Phosphate as claimed by the plaintiff and denied by the defendant? (v) Is the plaintiff's claim as mentioned in paragraph 10(a) of the plaint barred by limitation? (vi) Are the plaintiff and the defendant entitled to the respective relief as claimed in the plaint and in the counterclaim contained in the written statement? (vii) To what relief, if any, the parties are entitled?;