CAPITAL BOOT HOUSE Vs. INTERCRAFT LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Courts must take note of what is happening today. Parties take forcible possession. They then seek an ex-parte injunction restraining the other side i.e the party from whom forcible possession has been taken, from dispossessing them. Having taken possession very often they also ask the Court to appoint a Commissioner to ascertain who is in possession. Thus process of law is misused. In this Appeal Court is considering Orders passed at an interim stage. Thus all observations of this Court would be prima-facie. However facts set out hereafter disclose, even at this prima-facie stage, that the Respondent have taken forcible possession and then come to Court. Unfortunately, the Respondents have succeeded in obtaining an Order dated 24th August 1995 in its favour. They have thus managed to enjoy, for the last four years, the fruits of their illegal act. The Appeal is against the Order dated 24th August, 1995.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

(3.) The Appellants and Respondent entered into an Agreement dated 15th September 1980. According to the Appellants a Franchise was being granted to them. According to the Appellants a Franchise being unknown to India the Agreement was in the nature of an Agency Agreement. The Agreement was renewed on 16th September 1983, 16th September 1986, 16th September 1989 and 19th September, 1991.