TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J. - (1.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25th July, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS 88 of 2016 by which the plaintiff's application for interlocutory injunction being GA 884 of 2016 was dismissed and the first defendant's application for revocation of leave granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent being GA 2326 of 2016 was allowed.
(2.) The appellant entered into distributorship agreements for West Bengal and for Bihar and Jharkhand with the first respondent on 11th July, 2007 and on 21st May, 2008 respectively. Till 30th December, 2011 the first respondent used to collect blank cheques from the appellant and to fill them up at its own sweet will and to deposit the same without any prior notice to the appellant. Though the appellant never agreed to such terms but under coercion the appellant was compelled to accept such arrangement. To get out of such arrangement the appellant in the year 2011 entered into a channel finance facility agreement with ICICI bank, Gurusaday Branch at Kolkata on 30th December, 2011 and on the basis of the said agreement the first respondent was required to forward the invoice to the bank and only upon receipt of approval from the appellant, the bank used to make payment of such invoice directly to the first respondent. Such arrangement continued till the month of October, 2013 and as directed by the first respondent, the appellant had to enter into a fresh channel finance facility agreement on 18th October, 2013 with the second respondent being a group company of the first respondent. Thereafter in between April, 2014 and September, 2014 the appellant achieved an aggregate sale about of Rs. 12,00,00,000/-. After September, 2014, the first respondent forcibly dumped stock to the extent of Rs. 1,36,00,000/- and in the said month itself the sales dropped from Rs. 3,85,00,000/- to Rs. 50,00,000/- and the consequential deficit was recovered by the first respondent from the credit limit under the channel financing action in gross breach of the terms spelt out in the distributorship agreements. Thereafter threatening e-mails were sent to the appellant and on 29th May, 2015 the appellant was informed by the first respondent that a new distributor has been appointed for the State of West Bengal and the distributorships with the appellant have been terminated. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred the suit, inter alia, praying for a declaration that the termination of the distributorship agreements for the States of West Bengal and Bihar is void, illegal and unlawful. In connection with the suit, the appellant preferred an application for interlocutory injunction.
(3.) In the backdrop of the above facts, Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant submits that the distributorship agreements were concluded at Kolkata within the jurisdiction of this Court. All official communications and execution took place at the appellant's previous registered office and present administrative office at 6, Russell Street, Kolkata, as would be explicit from the first respondent's letters dated 13th January, 2016 and 14th January, 2016. From the agreements it would also be explicit that the witnesses have signed the said agreements at Kolkata and that they never travelled to Bangalore.;