ANAND MODGIL Vs. ORBIT AVIATION PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the parties were heard through video conferencing due to outbreak of the pandemic, COVID-19.

(2.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner arrayed as defendant No. 2 before learned trial Court, for setting aside order dtd. 16/10/2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana whereby application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff arrayed as respondent No. 1 in this petition was allowed, with a further prayer for setting aside order dtd. 18/1/2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed.

(3.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that respondent No. 1 - plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants including petitioner from undertaking and running similar business of luxury travel coach AC/non-AC buses from any town/city of Punjab to Delhi Airport and from Delhi Airport to any town/city of Punjab and from competing with existing business of the plaintiff and with business transferred by the defendants to the plaintiff on the basis of agreement dtd. 2/2/2017. It is pleaded that plaintiff-company M/s Orbit Aviation Private Limited was engaged in the business of plying AC/non-AC luxury travel coaches in the State of Punjab and from other towns and cities to Chandigarh and to Delhi Airport in the name and style of Indo Canadian Transport Company, a division of sister concern of M/s Orbit Resorts Ltd. Defendant No. 2 -present petitioner is stated to be the sole proprietor of defendant No. 1 - M/s Hermes International. Defendant No. 1 through its proprietor defendant No. 2, is stated to have approached the plaintiff for transfer of six integrated luxury coaches/buses alongwith insurance till October, 2017 in consideration of taking over of outstanding loan towards the defendants. Accordingly, agreement dtd. 2/2/2017 was executed between the parties and it is stated that the defendants transferred ownership of six luxury coaches as detailed therein to the plaintiff - company. Plaintiff - company through Indo Canadian Transport Company a division of its sister concern M/s Orbit Resorts Ltd. entered into an agreement for parking its vehicle with Delhi Airport Services Pvt. Ltd., subsequent to defendant No. 1 cancelling its agreement with Delhi Airport Parking services Pvt. Ltd. pursuant to agreement dtd. 2/2/2017. As per the said agreement, it was agreed that M/s Hermes International will not undertake similar business of running of luxury travel coach AC/non-AC buses from any town and city of Punjab to Delhi Airport and back and that it will not compete in any way with the existing business, transferred by it to M/s Orbit Aviation Private Limited. Further, in case of any breach of this term, petitioner would have to compensate M/s Orbit Aviation Private Limited through adequate damages. It is further pleaded that defendant in dereliction and breach of the specific clause of the agreement started running similar business inasmuch as luxury coaches were being plied from towns and cities of Punjab to Delhi Airport. Legal notice dtd. 29/8/2019 it is stated was issued by the plaintiff but to no avail. Accordingly, civil suit was filed. Alongwith the suit, application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed by the plaintiffs. Same was contested by the defendants. A categoric stand was taken by the defendants that agreement dtd. 2/2/2017 was limited to the transfer of assets correspondent to transfer of loan and there is no sale or purchase of any goodwill of any company or firm. Therefore, said clause, in any case, is hit by rigours of Sec. 27 of the Indian Contract Act (for short - 'the Contract Act'). It is further pleaded that the plaintiff - company is owned by former Chief Minister of Punjab and it is a transport mafia, which never allowed any person to enter into this business. When the defendant tried to run his transport business in 2016, he could not continue and having no option entered into agreement dtd. 2/2/2017. It is further pleaded that defendant No. 1, firm stands dissolved w.e.f. 2/2/2017, therefore, agreement in any case is not binding upon defendant No. 2 i.e. the petitioner.