ADITI MARKETING Vs. BIRLA 3M LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I am disposing of two applications bearing IA 2520/94 & IA 3399/94. IA 2520/94 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules I & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and in this application it was prayed that the defendants, their servants, agents be restrained from appointing any other person as Distributor of Scrub Pads in the Union Territory of Delhi. This application came up for hearing on 9th March, 1994 and on that date an ex-parte injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant their agents, servants were restrained from appointing any other distributor of Scrub Pads in the Union Territory of Delhi. Notice of this application was issued to the defendants and reply has been filed on behalf of the defendants controverting the averments and allegations made in the application.

(2.) IA 3399/94 has been filed on behalf of the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code and in this application it has been prayed that the interim ex-parte order made on 9th March, 1994 be setaside and the ex- parte injunction granted on that date be vacated. Reply to this application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff.

(3.) Mr. Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has drawn my attention to the letter dated 30th June, 1993 which was written by the defendants to the plaintiff and alongwith this letter, the terms and conditions for distributorship were annexed. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of this letter the plaintiff was granted distributorship by the defendants of their product Scrub Pads for the Union Territory of Delhi w.e.f. 30th June, 1993 and after the expiry of six months from the date of the said letter, the defendants were required to sign the formal distributor agreement in favour of the plaintiff. He further submitted that since the defendants continued supplying the material even after 30th December, 1993, the defendants are deemed to have appointed the plaintiff as distributor w.e.f 31st December, 1993. He further submitted that the plaintiff had made elaborate arrangements for the sale of the goods of the defendants and it was because of non-supply of the goods in sufficient quantity that the plaintiffs could not reach the target as prescribed in the terms and conditions of distributorship. He, therefore, contended that the interm order granted on 9th March, 1994 be confirmed.