Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

 C/AO/60/2022                               JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2022



[26]      In the case of Shivkumar Chaddha vs. Municipal

Corporation of Delhi (Supra), their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that judicial proceedings cannot be used to protect or to perpetuate a wrong committed by a person who approaches the Court. The plaintif-appellant, if we go by his case, in fact and substance, seeks from this Court protection of his illegel activities of exporting of goods to the importer though he is not having exporter-importer code number. In case such injunction, as prayed for, leaving apart the question whether the agreement dated 27 th March, 1998, is forged document or not, is granted in favour of the plaintif-appellant, then it will tantamount to perpetuating a wrong committed by a person who approaches the Court for exercise of its discretionary powers in the equitable jurisdiction. Exercising of discretionary powers in the equitable jurisdiction in such matter by the Court will otherwise encourage the people to act contrary to what the mandate of the statute contemplates. The role of the Courts is to see that citizens of the country do their business and trading as per, what the law of the country provides, permits, regulates and authorises. This Court will not pass an order which gives affirmance to the activities of commercial tradingor business, to the parties who approach to this Court, which if under-taken, are contrary to and under clear prohibition under the statute.

[30] This question of prima-facie case may also be examined from another aspect. If we go by the broad spectrum of facts on which there is no dispute, the export invoice has been sent by the defendant-respondent No. 1 to the importer and after accepting that export invoice, the firm order had been placed by the importer and in pursuance thereof he has opened a letter of credit as defendant-respondent No. 1 beneficiary therein. In the letter of credit also, it is specifically mentioned that the defendant- respondent No. 1 is beneficial and this letter of credit has been opened in response to and in pursuance of his export invoice dated 7.3.1998 The defendant respondent No.1 has incurred all the expenses for process of software floppies as per the specifications and requirement of importer as well as all other expenses of export of the same to the importer at Dubai. The plaintiff-appellant has admitted that he has not incurred a single pie in the process of these software floppies, and other expenses of export of these goods to the importer at Dubai. It is also admitted fact that the defendant-respondent No. 1 was having the importer- exporter code number as allotted to him by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act, 1992. In the presence of these facts and coupled with the fact that the basis of the suit, the document, alleged agreement dated 27th March, 1998 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, it cannot be considered to be a fit case where prima-facie it can be taken that the plaintiff-appellant has a prima-facie case in his favour which justified this Court to grant temporary injunction as prayed for in the C/AO/60/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2022 application ex.5.