INGERSOLL-RAND INDIA LTD Vs. BINOD KUMAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER the defendants in Title suit No. 208 of 1995 have filed this appeal against the order dated 21. 12. 1995 passed by Shri K. N. Ambastha, Subordinate Judgei, Ranchi, by which the interim order dated 16. 11. 1995 was made absolute restraining the defendants-appellants by issuing temporary injunction from implementing the termination of contract of distributorship granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 and also restraining the defendents-appellants from preventing defendant no. 4-respondent no. 2 (Central Coalfields limited, Ranchi) from purchasing the Stores supplied by the appellant-defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff till the disposal of the suit.

(2.) THE admitted position remains that the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 had entered into an agreement to the effect that the manufacturing products of defendant no. 1, namely, Down the Hole Drilling Machines, button Bits, Accessories and Spare Parts for drillings etc. , would be sold to the plaintiff who shall render required services to its customers, namely, all Mines of Central coalfields Limited in the State of Bihar and orissa and Bhavnathpur Limestone Mines of Bokaro Steel Limited in the State of bihar. According to the terms of the agreement, price of materials supplied by defendant no. 1 was to be paid to it by the plaintiff within a period of 30 days and in case of delay in payment, the plaintiff was to pay interest for period of delay over the amount remaining due. The plaintiff was also entitled to sell materials/articles to the central Coalfields Limited on the selling price fixed by Defendant no. 1 for each item. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he was practically a distributor and his appointment of distributorship was governed by the initial agreement dated" 27. 2. 1987 and the same was renewed from time to time and the last agreement was signed at ranchi on 2nd January, 1995. According to the plaintiff, while he was having all stock of materials worth of about Rs. 1,77,00,000/-supplied by defendant no. 1 against payment, he was suddently served with a notice dated 14. 8. 1995 which was received by the plaintiff on 28. 8. 1995 terminating the agreement with the plaintiff with effect from 15. 10. 1995 but actually the termination was made to take immediate effect from 15. 8. 1995 itself. The plaintiff made representation before defendant no. 1 but the same was not paid heed too and, hence, the present suit was filed.

(3.) THE following reliefs were claimed in the suit :-