GOLDEN WINE AGENCIES Vs. VENDELA DISTILLERIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against an order refusing to grant a temporary injunction under Or. 39; Rule 2 C.P.C restraining the defendant from committing breach of an agreement dated 28-3-1983.

(2.) The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell what is called 'Telugu Prince Beer' to be manufactured by the defendant. The plaintiff agreed to be the sole distributor of this product of the defendant and agreed to purchase the same at Rs. 260/- per case of four dozens ex-factory. The defendant contrary to the said agreement increased the price at Rs. 272/- and withheld supplying the goods and thus the plaintiff suffered a loss of one lakh for the relevant period and hence the suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement directing the defendant to supply the Telugu Prince Beer to the plaintiff at the rate and quality agreed to according to the requisition of the plaintiff and also for damages and costs. Pending the suit the plaintiff sought temporary injunction under Or. 39, Rule 2 C.P.C. restraining the defendant from committing the breach of the agreement dated 28-3-83 by directing the defendant to supply to the plaintiff the standard quality of Telugu Prince Beer at the agreed price of Rs. 260/- per case pending the disposal of the suit.

(3.) The defendant resisted this application on the ground that the plaintiff himself committed the breach in not paying the increased price for beer in terms of the contract resulting in huge loss of nearly two lakhs rupees to the defendant. It is further contended that the direction sought is in the nature of an interim mandatory injunction and the same cannot be granted. The trial court dismissed the said application holding that the agreement itself provides the increase of price of beer and therefore it is possible to assess the damage in case of breach of contract by either party and it cannot be said that irreparable loss would be caused if no temporary injunction is granted against the defendant. The said order is now impugned in this appeal.