JAFKO ENGINEERS Vs. KERALA STATE S S I CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S.390 of 1975 of the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor. That suit was filed for an injunction restraining the defendant, Kerala State Small Scale Industries Corporation, Trivandrum (now amalgamated into Kerala State Small Industries Development and Employment Corporation Limited, Trivandrum) from seizing certain machines mentioned in the schedule to the plaint and from taking any step for the recovery of amounts from the plaintiff pending execution of the ultimate agreement referred to in the plaint.

(2.) The facts of the case as detailed in the plaint are as follows: The plaintiff applied to the defendant for obtaining certain machines for starting an industry under a scheme issued by the defendant. The scheme envisaged application in prescribed form and payment of earnest money and also made provision for payment of the amounts due. Where more than one machine is to be supplied and each individual machine forms part of a complete plant, a consolidated agreement has to be executed which is referred to as the ultimate agreement besides the agreements executed at the time of supplying individual machines. According to the plaintiff first instalment of repayment in respect of applications where an ultimate agreement is executed would fall due only on the expiry of one year from the date of such agreement. On the basis of the above provision, the plaintiff applied for purchase of machines. Individual machines supplied formed parts of the complete Plant and no machine could be made use of independently. In respect of machines supplied by the different concerns at the instance of the defendant, there were defects and also delay in supplying and as a result, the plaintiff was not able to commission the plant in time. The plaintiff invested an amount of Rs. 70,000/- and had been paying rent of the premises from 1966. The plaintiff had been keeping the defendant informed about the delay in the supply of the machines and also about the defects. The defendant was asked on various occasions to take steps for the execution of the ultimate agreement in accordance with the terms of the contract. The defendant omitted to take steps. At the same time, the defendant has been pressing the plaintiff to pay the entire amount for the machines and has been threatening to take arbitrary and illegal steps to paralyse the plaintiff's unit. Attempts to seize the machines with police force were also being made. According to the plaintiff, until and unless the ultimate agreement is executed, he is not liable to pay the amounts demanded by the defendants. Hence the suit for injunction.

(3.) The issue relating to the local jurisdiction of the Court was considered as a preliminary point. The Additional Munsiff. Perumbavoor held that his Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and returned the plaint for presentation before the proper Court. C.M.A. 17 of 1976 was filed by the plaintiff against the above decision. The Additional District Judge, Parur dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Trial Court. The revision petition is filed challenging the above order.