MURALI Vs. WILKINSON SWORD INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders dated 29.03.2004 and 06.04.2004 of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli in I.A.No.1049 of 2002 in O.S.No.182 of 1999 and I.A.No.306 of 2004 in O.S.No.182 of 1999 respectively, allowing the Petitions filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay in filing the Petition to set aside the exparte Decree on payment of Rs.1000/- and setting aside the exparte Decree dated 16.08.1999. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) O.S.No.182 of 1999:- The Plaintiff has filed the Suit, claiming Rs.1,67,662/- from the Defendant. Case of the Plaintiff is that he was appointed as the Sales Representative of the Defendant Company. With effect from 01.07.1994, he was promoted to the post of Area Sales Executive with salary of Rs.5010/- per month. Later, under the Scheme, the plaintiff was offered the Distributorship for Trichirappalli area on the assurance that the Plaintiff's Income would be protected by the Defendant. With reluctance, the Plaintiff accepted the offer by giving a Written Offer dated 07.11.1995. The Defendant " Wilkinson Sword (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Wilkinson Ltd") has not performed its obligation in proper supply of the products. From May 1997, no supply has been provided as per the Agreement. As a result of the Defendant's non-compliance of the terms of the Appointment, the Plaintiff had lost his Income and has suffered loss. The Defendant is bound to pay to the Plaintiff Subsidy and other amounts as per the Agreement dated 08.12.1995. Hence, after issuing pre-Suit Notice, the Suit has been filed for Recovery of Rs.1,67,662/-.

(3.) THE Applications were resisted by the Plaintiff. Admitting the amalgamation of Wilkinson Limited with Gillette India Limited, in the Counter Statement, it is alleged that Wilkinson Limited was well aware of the case in O.S.No.182 of 1999; but has not chosen to contest the same inspite of several opportunities. Gillette India Limited cannot have a new right merely because the erstwhile Company Wilkinson Limited has become amalgamated with it. It is submitted that the Transferee Company takes the Assets subject to the Liability of the Transferor Company. Hence, Gillette India Limited is bound by the Decree and is liable to pay the amount. THE reasons stated for the delay is untenable. THE Applications have been filed only to delay the Execution Proceedings filed by the Plaintiff and to defeat the rights of the Plaintiff.