KARAN INDUSTRIES Vs. D C M LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction against the defendants praying as under:-

(2.) The arguments on this application have been heard afresh after remand by the Division Bench. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties with the help of the counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants. According to the plaintiffs, sometimes in the year 1979, plaintiff No.6 came in touch with defendant No.2 and both agreed to transact business with each other whereafter the plaintiff No. I placed an order on Defendant No. I for blocks/patterns which would thereafter be used by the defendants to produce the casting of cylinder heads. It is further alleged in the plaint that it was clearly understood that the defendants would use the blocks/patterns for manufacturing and supply of the casting to the plaintiffs exclusively and none else. However, neither any order for blocks/ patterns was placed by the plaintiffs on the defendants nor any agreement, as alleged by the plaintiff, containing the aforesaid condition/understanding, has been filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has further alleged having paid various sums of money towards the purchase of such patterns from the defendantts and seven such patterns are listed in paragraph-4 of the plaint along with the amounts paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. The defendants have not disputed having received thesumofRs.2,54,000.00 and Rs.2,00,000/ - in 1980 and 1988 respectively, but have stated that this money was paid by the plaintiff towards the cost of development of patterns and that there was no agreement to supply dies/patterns. The defendants have alleged that the present suit is a counter-blast to the defendant's Suit No. 1276/92 filed in March 1992 against the plaintiffs for recovery of their dues and have referred to inter alia plaintiff's letter dated 17.5.88. The defendants have also stated that they have been developing and manufacturing in series dies/patterns developed by them since 1977 and that the plaintiffs like many others were buyers of the cylinder head castings only, which were produced by the defendants by using the said dyes/pat-terns. The defendants have placed on record letters dated 22.10.1980 and 21.5.1988 wherefrom it is clear that the plaintiffs were buyers only of the casting and in latter letter, they have further provided a condition, which is as follows :-

(3.) The above conditions clearly seem to lend credence to the plea of the defendants that initially payments were made by the plaintiffs for the development of dies, but what the plaintiff was to buy from the defendants was only the casting so much so that the defective casting produced with the help of the said dies/patterns were to be returned in the initial stages and thereafter the plaintiff was to get five pieces of casting etc. with every hundred supplied. Assuming what the plaintiff has alleged was correct initially, but a perusal of the correspondence filed by the plaintiff shows adistinct change in their stand. It does appear that in the initial letter, understanding of the plaintiff was that the dies and casting were theirs. With that understanding, they wrote on 12.11.1990 staling therein, "In case you will not supply the casting, we would take our patterns/blocks and stop our business dealing with you." This stand appears to have undergone a complete change in their letter dated 11.6.1991, which inter-alia reads as under:-