HABIB PATEL Vs. KANIZ AKHTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for a decree of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum. The plaintiff also sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the name of the business concern of the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff Kaneez Akhtar pleaded that she was running a business of electrical and fabrication under the name and style "Patel Electricals and Mechanical" since the year 1991 at Link Road, Sadar, Nagpur. The plaintiff was undertaking Government contracts as well as contracts of private parties for the work of electrification and fabrication. The plaintiff was working for the Western Coalfields Limited as a recognized contractor. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant joined the plaintiff in the year 1991 and helped her in her business activities. It is pleaded that due to sheer hard work of the defendant during the course of his employment, the plaintiff reposed confidence in the defendant and his work. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant, however, after some time, abandoned the work of the plaintiff and while doing so, removed certain letterheads, stamps, bill-books, etc. from the business concern of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant started making use of these documents and started submitting tenders and quotations for carrying out the work of the Western Coalfields Limited by posing to be the proprietor of Patel Electrical and Mechanical but, showing its address at Imamwada, Nagpur and Tajbagh Darbar Gate, Umrer Road, Nagpur. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant received an approximate amount of Rs.80,000/- to Rs.85,000/- from the Western Coalfields Limited for executing the contracts of the Western Coalfields Limited. It is then pleaded that the action of the defendant had caused monetary loss to the aforesaid extent and also mental agony which could be calculated in money to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Due to the acts of the defendant, according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not able to get any work orders and the business of the plaintiff was totally ruined. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum till its realization.

(3.) The defendant did not file any written statement and failed to resist the claim of the plaintiff. After the Court decided to proceed with the matter without written statement, the matter was adjourned from time to time for tendering of the oral evidence by the plaintiff and the plaintiff filed her evidence on affidavit on 20.11.1999. The plaintiff reiterated the facts pleaded in the plaint in her evidence on affidavit.