HMM COACHES LTD. Vs. JAYCEE COACH BUILDERS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 1124-CII of 2001 is allowed as prayed for and the respondents are allowed to place on record the documents as prayed for.

(2.) M /s HMM Coaches Ltd. 175, Sector-7, Panchkula (Haryana) through its Company Secretary, Shri Ashok Swami, has filed the present revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it has been directed against the order dated 29.9.2000, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Panchkula, who, affirmed the order dated 26.4.2000, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panchkula, who granted the prayers of respondents No. 1 to 5, M/s Jaycee Coach Builders Limited, Shri Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal, Mrs. Shashi Aggarwal, Mr. Rishi Aggarwal and Ms Aarti Aggarwal, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CP.C. and ex parte injunction order dated 13.3.2000, vide which the defendants, including the present petitioner, were restrained either through themselves or through their agents, nominees and the business entitiles owned and managed by them from taking up directly or indirectly any business whatsoever for Swaraj Mazda Limited, which may be similar in nature to the business being undertaken by plaintiff No. 1 with Swaraj Mazda Limited including and in particular supply of buses, ambulances, special vehicles and cargo boxes on chassis manufactured by the Swaraj Mazda Limited in terms of clause 2 of the deed of settlement dated 11.8.1999 executed between the parties, was confirmed till the disposal of the suit.

(3.) PLAINTIFF No. 2 was engaged as a Dealer of Swaraj Mazda Ltd. since the year 1985. The dealership has been under the name and style of Globe Tractors Agencies, Karnal and Jaycee Motors and Tractors, Amritsar. Plaintiff No. 2 has also been a partner of another company by the name of Sterling Tools Limited which has been supplying fasteners to Swaraj Mazda Limited. The business relationship between the other companies and Swaraj Mazda progressed well. Swaraj Mazda Limited was interested in engaging the company to fabricate/build bodies on the chasis manufactured by Swaraj Mazda Limited because of good business relations between plaintiff No. 2 and his firms and company with Swaraj Mazda Limited and the reputation and good will built up with Swaraj Mazda Limited. Plaintiff No. 2 was successful in finalising an arrangement with Swaraj Mazda Limited for the business of fabrication and body building of buses and cargo boxes. Consequently, plaintiff No. 2 decided to establish the company namely Jaycee Coach Builders Limited with factory at Lalru, District Patiala. Defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiffs and desired participation in the business venture of plaintiff No. 2. Considering the relationship of plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 1, it was decided to allot the shares to defendant No. 1 to the extent of money, he decided to invest. Plaintiff No. 1 company commenced commercial operations on 15.5.1991. Plaintiff No. 2 has sufficient experience in the operation and management of plaintiff No. 1, which began to do substantial business with Swaraj Mazda Ltd. which continued to be the main customer of plaintiff No. 1. In the year 1995, the father-in-law of plaintiff No. 2 also joined the plaintiff company and invested Rs. 90 lakhs in the equity capital of plaintiff No. 1. The shares of plaintiff No. 1 were held by the parties as under:- Value of shares at the rate of Rs. 10/- No. of Shares Percent (a) Rajinder Aggarwal and his family members 4,27,500 18.70 (b) Bhupinder Goel and his family members 4,26,300 18.61 (c) Joginder Lal Aggarwal and his family members 9,00,000 39.30 (d) IFCI 2,50,000 10.90 (e) Others 2,86,2000 12.49 Total 22,90,000 100.00