(1.) This is a suit for permanent injunction and recovery of Rs.25,30,000/-. It has been alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff, who had come to know that the defendant wanted to allot distributorship for G.B. Pant Hospital, Delhi for supply of its various products to that hospital, submitted a letter dated 29th June, 1999, seeking right of distributorship. Defendant No.2 G.B. Pant Hospital issued a tender for supply of various surgical and other items in the month of October, 1999. The tenderer was required to deposit earnest money between Rs 5,000/- to Rs 30,000/-, in different categories. Defendant No.1, which wanted to participate in the tender to supply Group D items of Cardiology Department was required to pay earnest money of Rs 30,000/-. An official of defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiff, asking him to deposit the earnest money. Accepting the request, the plaintiff got prepared an FDR of Rs 30,000/- in favour of defendant No. 2 on 22nd October, 1999 and submitted the same to defendant No.1. The tender submitted by defendant No.1 was accepted by defendant No.2. It has been further alleged that defendant No.1 had also orally entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to supply its goods to G.B. Pant Hospital, for which the plaintiff was to be paid a margin of about 19% of the total sale. The officials of the defendant also requested the plaintiff to fulfil the basic requirement such as obtaining cellular phone, fax machine and computer, etc. Those requirements were also completed and defendant No.1 was intimated. However, defendant No.1 decided to allot the supply of goods to G.B. Pant Hospital to M/s Cure Aids India. According to the plaintiff, the supply to be made to defendant No.2 was to the tune of Rs 1.5 crore and 19% of margin on that amount comes to Rs 20.25 lakhs. The plaintiff, therefore, has claimed Rs 20 lakhs towards the margin on the sale to G.B. Pant Hospital. He has also claimed the amount of Rs 30,000/- which he had paid as earnest money. He has further claimed a sum of Rs 5 lakhs as damages for the mental torture, alleged to have been caused to him.
(2.) The suit has been contested by defendants. In its written statement, the defendant No.1 has taken a preliminary objection that the plaintiff was suing for specific performance of a non-executed agreement and since there was no contract, there was no question of any relief to the plaintiff. It has also been submitted that since there was no acceptance of the proposal submitted by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff, no contract came into existence between the parties. On merits, it has been alleged that no proposal for appointment of a dealer was submitted by the plaintiff in writing, though an FDR of Rs 30,000/- was submitted by him for considering his appointment as a dealer. It has been further alleged that no official of defendant No.1 had approached the plaintiff and it was the plaintiff, who had approached defendant No.1 to be appointed as a dealer and had submitted the FDR of Rs 30,000/- to show his bona fide. It has also been alleged that the plaintiff was required to take back the amount of Rs 30,000/-, but, he failed to do so.
(3.) Defendant No.2, in its written statement, has taken a preliminary objection that the suit against it did not disclose any cause of action since no transaction was entered into between it and the plaintiff. It has further been admitted that earnest money of Rs 30,000/- was required to be deposited for cardiology items and the tender submitted by defendant No.1 was accepted and supply order was placed on receipt of authorization from defendant No.1 in favour of M/s Cure Aids India.