HIMALAYAN STORE Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interim Order upon application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 CPC:-

(2.) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through its General Manager (Mobile) plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.12670969/- (Rupees One crore twenty six lacs seventy thousands nine hundred sixty nine) including interest @12% per annum upto filing of the suit. It is pleaded that plaintiff is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and having its registered office at Sanchar Bhawan 20 Ashoka Road New Delhi. It is further pleaded that plaintiff Company has also office in Himachal Pradesh. It is further pleaded that plaintiff is under the direct control of Department of Telecommunication Govt. of India. It is further pleaded that Department of Telecommunication has administrative and financial control over the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that Govt. of India is holding 100% capital share of the plaintiff company. It is further pleaded that SIMS (Subscriber Index Module) cards were sold through BSNL franchise as per agreement dated 14.11.2002. It is further pleaded that defendants approached the plaintiff for appointing as authorized dealer for marketing and distribution of cellular phones/ connections within the State of Himachal Pradesh subject to terms and conditions executed inter se parties. It is further pleaded that defendants also furnished unconditional Bank Guarantee in the sum of Rs.500000/- (Rupees five lacs). It is further pleaded that defendants appointed retailer/agents/sales executive force for the purpose of booking new connections and appointed many agents/sales executive/sales force for the expansion of business. It is further pleaded that defendants had caused financial loss to the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.12670969/- (Rupees One crore twenty six lacs seventy thousands nine hundred sixty nine). Prayer sought for grant of decree for recovery of Rs.12670969/- (Rupees One crore twenty six lacs seventy thousands nine hundred sixty nine).

(3.) Co-defendant No.1 did not file written statement in Civil Suit No. 4069 of 2013-B. Co-defendant No.1 filed application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of plaint.