KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI Vs. MAHAN PROTEINS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for determination in these cases is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case as revealed from the record the trial Court was right in passing the order of interim injunction against the defendants. Since all the cases involve common questions of fact and law, they were heard together with consent of learned Counsel for the parties and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case relevant for determination of the question may be stated thus : The plaintiff Company, M/s. Mahan Proteins Ltd. filed Original Suit No. 289 of 1997 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Divi- sion), Mathura against the Krishi Utpadan, Mandi Samiti, Kosi Kalan and the State Agricultural Produce Market Board, Uttar Pradesh seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from demanding or charging any market fee in respect of transfer of stock from the factory of the plaintiff Company at Kosi Kalan to different depots established by it, in any manner whatsoever. The case of the plaintiff Company, shortly stated, is that there is no transaction of sale of the goods when the plaintiff transfers stock of Ghee from the factory situated within the market area of the Mandi Samiti to its sale depots situated outside the market area inasmuch as title of the goods continues with the plaintiff, the plaintiff does not realise any market fee from anybody at that stage.

(3.) The case of the defendants, on the other hand, is that whether a particular transaction is 'sale' or 'stock transfer' depends on several factors for determination of which it is necessary to consider the nature of the transaction and the papers relating to the transaction. According to the defendants, this determination is to be made by the Mandi Samiti when the stock is proposed to be transferred outside the market area. In such a case it is not permissible for the Court to pass a decree of permanent injunction in the suit or pass an order of interim injunction during pendency of the suit, restraining the defendants from discharging their statutory duty to assess and realise market fee from the plaintiff.