SUDHANGSHU MOHAN DEB Vs. D M HAZARIKA ALIAS DHIRAJ MONI HAZARIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the order dated 6.5.2002 of the learned District Judge, Karimganj, passed in Misc Case No.61 of 2001 (arising out of TS No.209 of 2001), this revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff of the suit concerned. The impugned order has vacated the order of injunction granted earlier and confirmed later on 12.12.2001 by the original Court directing the opposite party-defendants of the suit not to impose any bar/restriction in respect of supply of cigarettes as per requirement of the petitioner-plaintiff and also not to make any alternative arrangement for supply to other persons or for marketing of cigarettes through persons other than the petitioner within the district of Karimganj.

(2.) Briefly stated, suit for the petitioner-plaintiff in this context is that plaintifffirtn is a wholesale dealer of cigarettes for the whole district of Karimganj, manufactured by ITC (defendant No. 3) and marketed through its management agents, the defendants 1 and 2. That as per 'contract and understanding with the defendant' and 'terms of arrangement' cigarettes of different brands were being supplied to the petitioner, order for which being placed in the prescribed format along with requisite remittance. That petitioner deposited a sum of rupees fifteen lacs and invested huge amount for the required infrastructures and the business started from 5.7.2001. But next after 12.9.2001 defendants stopped the supply in an arbitrary way and mischievous manner threatening heavy loss in business of the petitioner and the reputation of the plaintiff-firm. That attempts were being made by the defendants/opposite parties to make alternative supply of cigarettes to persons o'ther than the petitioner-plaintiff. Hence petitioner- plaintiff prayed for declaration that it is entitled to continue the business with defendant No.3 (OP) and sought interim injunction.

(3.) The opposite parties-defendants of the suit filed the written objection- statement contending, inter alia, that the suit is a misconceived and not maintainable in its present form and also is devoid of cause of action. That the petitioner was not appointed wholesale dealer of the cigarettes for district of Karimganj. That petitioner was only a customer of the OP No. 3 and was supplied with the goods as per order placed by the petitioner and the status of petitioner was in no way different than that of any other customer. That the demand made by the petitioner by placing order was liable to be rejected wholly or in part without assigning any reason. That each and every order placed for supply was an independent transaction of sale and customers are in habit of placing orders in standard form supplied by the OP No. 3. That excepting a sum of Rs.2.52 lakhs deposited for purchase of goods no amount was lying with the OP No. 3 to the credit of the petitioner. That there was no stipulation or agreement between the parities for making investment as claimed by the petitioner and opposite parties are not under any legal obligation to ensure uninterrupted supply of goods to the petitioner. That the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs by way of bribery to one of the erstwhile employee of the OP and this was admitted by Subroto Deb, a partner of the petitioner firm, vide a letter addressed to the Manager of the OP No. 3 admitting his guilt. That it was decided by the OP No.3 not to have further business with the petitioner. That there was no compulsion for OP No.3 to continue business with the petitioner, or as a matter of tact, with any other customer. That as per the 'conditions of sale' attached to format of order, order is to be placed for supply of cigarettes, even if the petitioner was a whole-seller having a code number. The OP No.3 could notbe compelled by the petitioner as per its assessed requirement to continue business to the exclusion of all other parties in the district of Karimganj. That no legal right exists in favour of the petitioner to give it cause of action for the suit. That the contract in question was not an enforceable contract under the provision of Specific Relief Act and therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, even if the facts are admitted, there is no legal scope for getting an order of injunction, much less a mandatory one.