Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 558 (JHR)

Rudra Enterprises v. Castrol India Limited

2019-02-26

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
ORDER : 1. This writ petitioner is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 03.02.2016 passed in Title Suit No.139 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected, which has been confirmed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.04 of 2016. 2. It is the case of the petitioner, who is plaintiff in the suit, has been instituted upon termination of dealership of distribution of fuel in which a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed for getting temporary injunction of the cancellation order, the same has been rejected vide order dated 03.02.2016 by the trial court, which was terminated in the year 2015. The said application was filed on the ground that the petitioner is distributor of fuel since in the year 2001 and due to cancellation of the distributorship agreement the money lying in the market which is to be received by the petitioner, the same would be difficult for him to get it after cancellation of the distributorship licence. The trial court after considering the terms and conditions of distributor agreement pertaining to the distributorship wherein it has been provided that the cancellation of the said deed is in terms and conditions of the agreement i.e. after coming to the compromise and on 19.09.2000 the same was cancelled which is an admitted fact. It has been observed that there is arbitration clause in dispute and taking into consideration these aspect of the matter the petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved with the same as also the petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by invoking jurisdiction conferred under the provision of Section 43 (1) (r) of the CPC which has also been rejected against which this writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the plea which has been taken before the trial court as also before the appellate court. 5. This Court thinks it proper to discuss the power of the Court in granting interim injunction/interim relief. 4. Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the plea which has been taken before the trial court as also before the appellate court. 5. This Court thinks it proper to discuss the power of the Court in granting interim injunction/interim relief. Grant of an interim relief with regard to the nature and extent thereof depends upon the facts and circumstances for each case as no straight jacket formula can be laid down. 6. Grant of temporary injunction has three basic principles; balance of convenience and irreparable injury which are required to be considered in a proper perspective in the fact and circumstances of a broad case. In case of Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. reported in AIR 1999 SC 3105 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the other considerations which ought to weigh with the Court hearing the application or petition for the grant of injunction are as below:- (i) Extent of damages being an adequate remedy; (ii) Protect the plaintiff’s interest for violation of his rights though however having regard to the injury that may be suffered by the defendants by reason therefor; (iii) The Court while dealing with the matter ought not to ignore the factum of strength of one party’s case being stronger than the others; (iv) No fixed rules or notions ought to be had in the matter of grant of injunction but on the facts and circumstances of each case, the relief being kept flexible. (v) The issue is to be looked from the point of view as to whether on refusal of the injunction the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury keeping in view the strength of the parties’ case; (vi) Balance of convenience or inconvenience ought to be considered as an important requirement even if there is a serious question or prima facie case in support of the grant; (vii) Whether the grant or refusal of injunction will adversely affect the interest of general public which can or cannot be compensated otherwise. 7. 7. In the case of Dalpat Kumar and Another vs. Prahlad Singh and Others reported in AIR 1993 SC 276 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has explained the scope of interim order i.e. The phrases “prima facie case”; “balance of convenience” and “irreparable loss” are not rhetoric phrases for incantation, but words of width and elasticity, to meet myriad situations presented by man’s ingenuity in given facts and circumstances, but always is hedged with sound exercise of judicial discretion to meet the ends of Justice. The facts are eloquent and speak for themselves. It is well nigh impossible to find from facts prima facie case and balance of convenience. 8. In the backdrop of this position of law the factual aspect involved in the instant case has been scrutinized and it has been found that the dealership agreement of the petitioner has been cancelled in the year 2015 by following the procedure laid down under the contention in the aforesaid dealership agreement and petitioner is seeking an interim injunction so that he may recover his money lying in the marked, the question is that the recovery of money is not the subject matter of the suit and that can be recovered by the petitioner through other mode and therefore, it cannot be said that by not granting interim injunction the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and as such there is no prima facie case. 9. It is also to be noted herein that the suit is against the termination of agreement and if the interim order would be passed keeping the operation of termination in abeyance at interim stage itself the entire thing would be adjudicated and the petitioner will get the relief before decision of the suit by way of interim measure. 10. In view thereof and applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove and considering the reasons assigned by the trial court as also the appellate court, according to the considered view of this Court, there is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting this Court to exercise its power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view thereof, the writ petition having no merit fails and is hereby dismissed.