LAWS(GAU)-1991-1-1

DEEPANJAN GUHA Vs. RAJESH GUPTA

Decided On January 02, 1991
DEEPANJAN GUHA Appellant
V/S
RAJESH GUPTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 21-11-89, the learned single Judge of this Court on perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 26-9-89 passed in Civil Original Petition (Contempt) No. 75/ 88, was of the opinion that there was prima facie case in respect of the present petition for initiating proceeding for contempt of Court and, accordingly, notice was issued. Parties have appeared and filed counter-affidavit.

(2.) I have heard Mr. S. K. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. N. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

(3.) For the purpose of the present petition the facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows : The plaintiff is the sole proprietor of a business firm known as M/ s. Khubchand and Sons, Music Department and is engaged in selling, various types of goods including Audio and Video products of the renowned manufacturers of the Country including the product sold under the trade name ONIDA. According to the plaintiff-petitioner, the defendant No. 1 is the manufacturer of the said product ONIDA with Head Office at Delhi and Defendant No. 2 is an associated company of the defendant No. 1 for marketing and selling the products. The defendant No. 3 is the Officer-in-charge of the defendants 1 and 2 and the defendant No. 4 is the Regional Manager at Calcutta, and defendant No. 5 is the Managing Director of the defendants 1 and 2. It is not disputed that the plaintiff-petitioner became the authorised dealer of the said product 'ONIDA' since 6-11-85. According to the plaintiff in August, 1989 one Sales Executive of defendants 1 and 2 visited the show room of the plaintiff and informed that they would not allow the plaintiff to continue as authorised dealer as the plaintiff was also selling the products sold under the brand name VIDEOCON. The grievance of the plaintiff-petitioner is that thereafter the defendants did not show the name of the plaintiff in the advertisement of their products as authorised dealer and that the defendants are not supplying their products. Accordingly, the present suit was filed with a prayer for ad-interim injunction which was granted by order dated 25-9-89. By the said injunction, the defendants were restrained from terminating the dealership of the plaintiff and from adopting non-cooperative attitude towards the plaintiff and the defendants were further directed not to do anything prejudicial and detrimental to the plaintiff firm. Another direction was issued on the defendants to insert the name of the plaintiff- firm in their advertisement and also to send regularly the representative and technician to the show room of the plaintiff for taking orders for supplying the products and to attend to the complaints.