S K GUPTA Vs. HYDERABAD ALLWYN LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of the Senior Sub Judge. Delhi dated 30th June 1987 in R.C.A.No. 37/87.

(2.) The petitioner M/s Rohini Times was appointed as exclusive stockist of the respondent for the Union Territory of Delhi for sale of watches by way of a memorandum of understanding between the respondent and the petitioner dated 1st August 1984. Clause I of the memorandum of understanding reads as follows:

(3.) It was contended by the learned counsel fur the petitioner that the ( Senior Sub Judge, Delhi was not right in observing that since compensation in money is an adequate relief, a suit for permanent injunction was barred under Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act 1963 ^(hereinafter referred to as the Act) and, therefore, it could not be held that a prima-facie case was made out for granting temporary injunction in a case like the present one. Learned counsel submitted that since there was a negative covenant in the agreement, though the contract was terminable as envisaged under Section 14(l)(c). Section 41(e) of the Act was not applicable and Section 42 of the Act was applicable and / injunction could be granted^ Learned counsel relied on International Oil Co. v. Indian Oil Co. Ltd., AIR 1969 Madras 423, Warner Brothers Pictures inc. v. Nelson, (1936) 3, All. E.R. 1963 and Marco Productions Ltd v. Pagola & Others, (1945) I, All. E.R, 155 in support of his contention. He further submit- ted that since the present case falls under Section 42 of the Act once the petitioner had made out a prima-facie case, the petitioner was entitled to get the interim injunction prayed for. Learned counsel submitted that the communi- cation terminating the arrangement alleged to have been sent by the respondent to the petitioner was not proved to have been received by the petitioner and, therefore, there was a prima-facie case to show that the memorandum of understanding was still continuing and the respondent had committed breach of the agreement. Learned counsel referred to certain documents filed by the parties before the trial court as well as the first appellate court including a circular issued by the respondent on 1st August 1984 informing the dealers that the petitioner has been appointed as the sole stockist for their product.