JAIPUR METALS AND ELECTRICALS LIMITED Vs. JAIN INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant's civil revision directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, whereby appeal against ex parte ad interim injunction order passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Rohtak, was dismissed.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that the petitioner is a Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of Electric Meters at Jaipur, Rajasthan. In 1992, the respondents approached the petitioner Company and requested it to appoint plaintiff-respondent No. 1 as its dealer for the State of Haryana. Vide letter dated 13. 10. 1992, petitioner Company provisionally appointed respondent-firm as its dealer for various Districts in the State of Haryana. The dealership was provisional and valid only upto 31. 3. 1993. The petitioner-Company vide letter dated 10. 6. 1993 conveyed to the respondent-firm that the dealership stood terminated in terms o of the appointment letter. After waiting for almost two months, the respondent-firm filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the petitioner-Company. In the suit, declaration was sought to the effect that letter dated 10. 6. 1993 terminating the dealership is totally illegal, without jurisdiction and void and for further declaration that the dealership for Energy Meters given in the name of the respondent-firm is still subsisting and continuing and is not liable to be terminated unless any fault or breach of the appointment letter is committed by the respondent-firm. An injunction was also sought for restraining the petitioner-Company from terminating the dealership in respect of the Electric Meters and its sale by the respondent-firm against regular payment. A further relief was also sought to direct the petitioner-company to supply 16,900 Meter to the respondent-firm upto 31. 8. 1993 and for supply of 3,000 Energy Meters in future every month against payment. The respondent-firm alleged that it had placed orders upto 31. 3. 1993 for more than 38,000 Meters and so far only 14,000 Meters had been supplied and thus the supply of 24,000 Meters was still pending. The respondent-firm further stated that since the petitioner-Company was not making supplies to them, the respondent-firm was suffering huge loss on account of non-supply of Energy Meters. Along with the suit, an application for ad-interim injunction was filed on which the trial Court passed exparte order on the very date the suit was presented. The effect of the order was that the petitioner-Company was restrained from stopping supply of Electric Meters to the respondent-firm. Trial Court further restrained it from treating it authorised dealership of respondent-firm as terminated. The petitioner-Company was also directed to supply 16,900 Meters against payment and continue supplying 3,000 Meters per Month, single phase or three phase, in terms of appointment letter dated 13. 10. 1992. The petitioner-Company feeling aggrieved of the ex parte order preferred appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak. This order is impugned in this civil revision.

(3.) MR. M. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, counsel for the petitioner-company while impugning the order made reference to various clauses of letter dated 13. 10. 1992 vide which the respondent-firm was appointed as dealer and contended that no case had been made out for granting ex parte ad-interim injunction. Counsel also contended that the Courts at Rohtak had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as under the agreement, parties had agreed that in case of any dispute, the same shall be subject to Jaipur jurisdiction.