BHASKERBHAI M SHAH Vs. SHASHIKANTBHAI HIMMATLAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Misc. Application arises out of the process issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 5 Ahmedabad in the form of summons by admitting the complaint of opponent No. 1 and registering it as Criminal Case No. 647 of 1987

(2.) The facts appearing from the complaint annexed with the Application may briefly be state below :

(3.) The applicant are respectively shown as the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the compliant by the opponent No. 1. According to opponent No. 1/08/1986 the accused Nos. 1 approached him at his office at Ahmedabad and represented that he wants to appoint the opponent Nos. 1 as the stockist for the city of Ahmedabad in respect of the product of the firm of the accused No. 1. He also represented and promised that the firm of accused No. 1 would make publicity of the product (Fabasha Mosquito repellent Cake) in radio and newspapers and he would issue posters banners and cinema slides for that purpose. He also represented and promised that he would depute a sales representative of his firm and would assist the opponent No. 1 in the work of sales. Reposing confidence on the promises given by the accused No. 1 the complainant-opponent No. 1 agreed to become the stockist of the aforesaid product of the firm of accused No. 1. Thereafter the opponent No. 1 had placed order for 11 cases comprising 3 970 Fabasha Mosquito Repellant Cakes of the value of Rs. 19 872 and tendered this amount of Rs. 19 872 to the accused persons alongwith letter dated 9/09/1986 and also informed them that it was absolutely necessary to give publicity of the products in the newspapers Sandesh Gujarat Samachar and on the radio. Thereafter the opponent No. 1-complainant informed the accused persons on a trunk call that the goods which were supplied as aforesaid could not be sold due to insufficient publicity. On 18/09/1986 the complainant-opponent No. 1 wrote a letter to the accused persons informing them that even the publicity on radio had stopped and there was no publicity in the newspapers in so far as the aforesaid product was concerned and that it was causing a great difficulty in selling the said product. The opponent No. 1 wrote a reminder letter dated 26/09/1986 in this respect but of no avail.