HUMAYUN M VOHRA Vs. ESPN STAR SPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court Division in First Miscellaneous Appeal Tender No. 538 of 2002 dismissing the appeal arising out of order dated 108-2002 passed by the Joint District Judge, Fifth Court, Dhaka in Title Suit No. 188 of 2002 which summarily rejected the application under Order XXXIX rules I and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of the case, in short, are that on 10-8-2002, the plaintiff, as an agent, instituted the suit against its principal the ESPN Star Sports and 268 others for decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.1 ESPN Star Sports of Singapore and defendant No. 2, ESPN Software India (Pvt.) Ltd. of India, from dealing with defendant No. 3, Ismail Dobash, proprietor of the Total $ports of Dhaka in the matter of agency, and defendant Nos. 4 to 165 from dealing with said defendant No. 4 in the matter of subscription of the ESPN Star Sports. Plaint case, in short, is that the plaintiff was appointed exclusive distributor of defendant No. 1 ESPN Star Sports for the entire Bangladesh by two contracts dated 7-9-1997 and 28-8-1999. Defendant No. 1 used to broadcast its channel programmes through the instruments, Decoder and Sim Card, from Singapore and collect subscriptions from the cable operators through the agency of the plaintiff; plaintiff invested huge fund in establishing its office, etc and also obtained necessary clearance from the Bangladesh Bank for remittance of the subscription. But on 31-7-2002 defendant No. 3 issued a circular asking the subscriber, defendant Nos. 4 to 265 to contact him claiming that he was appointed new distributor and on the following day, on 1-8-2002 defendant No. 2 also circulated letters informing the said cable operators as their new distributor in Bangladesh in violation of the obligations under the contract- of agency with the plaintiff.

(3.) Same date on the above averments, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction on the above terms till disposal of the suit. The application was heard and was summarily rejected on the ground that the balance of convenience and inconvenience was against the plaintiff.