SALEM COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD Vs. S KUPPANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the defendant in suit O.S.No.223 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal laid by the respondent/plaintiff for a bare injunction to restrain the revision petitioner/defendant from proceeding with the auction notification inviting the tenders for labour contract to run the petrol bunk of the petitioner/ Cooperative Sugar Mill, on the basis that the respondent/plaintiff continues to be an agreement holder for running the petrol bunk of the revision petitioner/ Cooperative Sugar Mill.

(2.) Admittedly, the respondent was appointed as a Labour Contractor to run the petrol bunk of the revision petitioner/ Cooperative Sugar Mill for a period of one year from 1.6.2000 to 31.5.2001 as per the agreement entered into between the petitioner/defendant and the respondent/ plaintiff dated 2.6.2000. The said period of contract came to an end and the revision petitioner/defendant proposed to invite tenders for labour contract to run the petrol bunk of the petitioner/Cooperative Sugar Mill, by a notice dated 22.4.2001 and the respondent also submitted his tender on 3.5.2001, which clearly shows that his contract period came to an end on 31.5.2001. However, the petitioner/ Cooperative Sugar Mill without proceeding with the said notice came out with a fresh tender notification dated 27.6.2001.

(3.) Mrs.G.Thilakavathi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner again invited the attention of this Court to the serious financial loss caused to the revision petitioner/cooperative sugar Mill as well as to the fact that the respondent/plaintiff has no valid licence to continue to operate the petrol bunk.