BAJAJ AUTO LTD Vs. SUNDEEP POLYMERS P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT, Shri R. P. Joshi, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit Mo. 881 of 1999 dated 6th September, 2001, thereby rejecting the application of the applicants under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicants approach this Court by way of present civil revision application.

(3.) THE factual background giving rise to the filing of the present civil revision application is as under :-That the respondent No. 1 herein filed a Special Civil Suit No. 881 of 1991 for recovery of Rs. 79,63,99,736/- as damages for breach of contract. It is the contention of the plaintiff in the plaint that it is the manufacturer of moulds and high precision plastic component for the industrial application specially for use by automobile industry. It is contended by the plaintiff that it has its manufacturing operations at Nagpur and that the defendants have entered into an agreement with it for life time supply of its products. It is contended by the plaintiff that it has made huge investments at Nagpur amounting to rupees thirty crores and that it has a most sophisticated factory at Nagpur. It is further contended that the plaintiff/ respondent is supplying its products to the applicant No. 1 for almost two decades. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the application No. 1 herein vide registered letter dated 3-11-1999, which was received by the plaintiff at its Nagpur office on 11-11-1999, has terminated its agreement with the plaintiff. It is the contention of the plaintiff that due to the said termination the machineries which were installed by the plaintiff specifically for manufacturing moulds for the present applicant No. 1 /defendant No. 1 would remain idle and that there will be no use of its unit installed at Nagpur. The plaintiff, therefore, contended that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation of damages inasmuch, as the defendant No. 1's action of refusing to honour its promise and assurance was illegal and arbitrary.