- (1.) This is second appeal by plaintiff M/s. Thakur Agency through its partner Ajay Singh Thakur, having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.
(2.) Plaintiffs case is that defendant No.1 is manufacturer of Campco Chocolates, whereas defendant No. 3 is super stockiest thereof and defendant No. 2 is Sales Manager. Plaintiff is wholesale dealer of defendants No.1 and 2 for Campco Chocolates at Hoshiarpur. There is no other dealer at Hoshiarpur for the same. Plaintiff deposited security of Rs. 2,000/- with defendant No. 2. Plaintiff was admitted as wholesale dealer by defendants No.1 and 2. Defendant No. 3 super stockiest had been supplying Campco Chocolates, in Punjab including the plaintiff at Hoshiarpur. The plaintiff on 28.08.2002 sent draft for Rs. 4,200/- to defendant No. 3 for supply of the Chocolates, but defendant No. 3 instead of supplying the same returned the draft to the plaintiff vide letter dated 02.09.2002 and also informed the plaintiff that defendants have made retailers in Hoshiarpur town. The plaintiff alleged that defendant No. 3 has no right to stop supply of the Chocolates to the plaintiff because defendant No. 3 is neither manufacturer nor official of defendant No.l. It was pleaded that defendants No.1 and 2 have not issued any letter terminating the wholesale dealership of the plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff sought mandatory injunction directing the defendants to supply Campco Chocolates regularly to the plaintiff. Injunction restraining defendants from stopping the delivery of the Chocolates to the plaintiff and from supplying the Chocolates to any other dealer in Hoshiarpur was also claimed. Defendants No.1 and 2 in their written statement challenged territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Hoshiarpur, claiming that Head office of defendant No.1 is at Mangalore (Karnataka) and Regional offices are in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Bangalore and Branch office for Punjab State is at Chandigarh. It was also pleaded that defendant No. 3 has already appointed stockiest at Hoshiarpur who are necessary parties to the suit. It was, however, admitted that plaintiff was stockiest of defendant No.1 up to the year 1998. Thereafter, plaintiff became stockiest of defendant No. 3 (super stockiest) till September, 2002. Defendant No. 3 terminated the stockiest ship of the plaintiff vide letter dated 02.09.2002 because the plaintiff failed to carry on the business with proper devotion and care and could not promote the sales upto stipulated volume. Defendant No. 3 accordingly suffered great loss. Defendant No. 3 has appointed another stockiest for Hoshiarpur city. There was no contract between the parties that the plaintiff would remain wholesale dealer for the whole life. Various other pleas were also raised.
(3.) Defendant No. 3 also took similar stand as that of defendants No.1 and 2.;