PROVOGUE INDIA LTD Vs. NAVEEN KHOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LA. No. 525/2008 (Exemption C. Fee)Learned counsel states that the balance Court fee would be paid during the course f the day. Let the application disposed in terms of the statement. LA. No. 524/2008 (Org. Documents)Allowed, subjected to the petitioner filing the originals within six weeks. LA. No. 523/2008 (U/o 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC)Issue notice. Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the defendant-respondent. Counsel states that he would not be filing a separate reply to the application and has instructions to oppose it today. With the consent of the counsel for the parties the application was heard finally.

(2.) THE plaintiff-applicant seeks a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their employees, representatives etc. from interfering and obstructing its uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the its business from premises being G-7, Janak Palace, Janak Puri, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as suit premises ). In this application, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in similar terms is claimed.

(3.) THE plaintiff avers that some time in October-November, 2005 it was on the lookout for premises for running a store from Janak Puri area. The defendant-Respondent was introduced to it. According to the plaintiff the premises was lease-hold and could not be sub-leased. However, the defendant allegedly assured it that the plaintiff could be in full control of the premises and that he would not interfere with the day-to-day working of the business. In the circumstances, the parties entered into an agreement on 16. 12. 2005. The defendant/respondent was styled and described as a franchisee.