Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 7th November, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in G.A No. 2977 of 2012 filed in a suit being C.S. No. 360 of 2012.
(2.) By the impugned order the plaintiff was restrained from supplying any goods of any description (in addition to metal liners) to the Railways till such time that the plaintiff puts in a deposit of Rs.1 crore with the Research Designs and Standard Organization (RDSO) with a direction that such deposit will stand forfeited upon the slightest complaint against the plaintiff's goods adhering to any specification being justified within a period of 5 years from date. By way of clarification it was mentioned in the impugned order that no nut or bolt of the plaintiff's manufacture will reach any railway station and yard or store without the deposit of Rs.1 crore. In terms of the said order in actual money (not by way of any bank guarantee) being made with the RDSO at its headquarters, which money the RDSO will be entitled to forfeit upon the discovery of any goods supplied by the plaintiff to the Railways in the next 5 years not adhering to the contracted specifications. It was further directed that if there is no default on such account on the part of the plaintiff, the deposit will be refunded after 5 years from the date of such deposit being made to the plaintiff with interest @ of 5% per annum simply, irrespective of the interest that RDSO may earn on such deposit. All interim orders which were passed earlier in the said injunction proceeding stood vacated and the order of arrest of supply imposed on the plaintiff by the RDSO letter on July 4/9, 2012 stood effective immediately. The plaintiff was also directed to pay cost of the present interlocutory proceeding assessed at Rs.5 lakhs to RDSO. The said impugned order was passed in a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the defendant/respondent herein.
(3.) Following reliefs were claimed by the plaintiff in the said suit. a) Declaration that the inspection carried out by the defendant no.1 as mentioned in paragraph 21 in relation to the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant no.3 is illegal, null and void and dehors the contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant no.3; b) Declaration that the letters No. QA/CT/Metal liner/Confidential/1 and QA/CT/Metal liner/Confidential/2, both dated 4/9th July, 2012, being Annexure "B" hereto, and the letter being No. RITES.WR.JI.(E) SNo.16(2012-13) dated 28th September, 2012, issued by the defendant no.2, be declared illegal being annexure "A" hereto, de hors the contract entered between the plaintiff and the defendants and be adjudged null and void; c) A decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1 & 2 and each of them, their men, servants, agents and/or assign from taking any steps and/or any further steps and/or giving any effect and/or further effect to or acting in furtherance of the letters No.QA/CT/Metal liner/Confidential/1 and QA/CT/Metal liner/Confidential/2, both dated 4/9th July, 2012, being Annexure "B" hereto, and the letter being No. RITES. WR.JI.(E)SNo.16(2012-13) dated 28th September, 2012, issued by the defendant no.2 being annexure "A" hereto; d) A decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1 & 2 and each of them, their men, servants, agents and/or assign from taking any punitive steps against the plaintiff pursuant to letters being Nos. QA/CT/Metal liner/Confidential/1 and QA/CT/Metal liner/Confidential/2, being Annexure "B" hereto; e) A decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1& 2 and each of them, their men, servants, agents and/or assigns from taking any steps for joint inspection as notified in the letter dated 28th September, 2012 or otherwise in any manner whatsoever; f) A decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1 & 2 and each of them, their men, servants, agents and/or assigns from interfering and/or the plaintiff's right to manufacture and/or offer inspection of the Metal Liners bearing drawing No.RT-3738; g) Delivery up and cancellation of the letters No. QA/CT/Metal liner/Confidential/1 and QA/CT/ Metal liner/Confidential/2, both dated 4/9th July, 2012, being Annexure "B" hereto, and the letter being No. RITES.WR.JI.(E)SNo.16 (2012-13) dated 28th September, 2012, issued by the defendant no.3; h) An enquiry into the loss and damages suffered by the plaintiff for the wrongful and illegal acts on the part of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in stopping the plaintiff's production and inspection of Metal Liners and a decree for such may be made in favour of the plaintiff upon such enquiry being made; i) Injunction; j) Receiver; k) Attachment; l) Costs; m) Such or further order.;