Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. Mr. Sudipta Sarkar, learned senior advocate, appearing for the defendant No. 3 (Aral), submits that the present application for interim relief is not maintainable. Mr. Sarkar submits that the contract was a terminable contract and Aral is within its right to terminate the contract. Mr. Sarkar submits that the plaintiff can be adequately compensated by monetary compensation in case of success in the suit and as such is not entitled to any order of injunction. Mr. Sarkar submits that the Reserve Bank of India was only concerned with payment of royalties in connection with foreign collaboration agreement and the approvals granted by the Reserve Bank of India and the Government of India are to be read in the aforesaid context. The duration suggested by the Reserve Bank of India and the Government of India was indicative of the maximum period for which royalty could be paid by Universal to Aral. Moreover, it was clear to the parties that the supplementary agreements do not disturb the original agreement in letter of spirit. Mr. Sarkar submits that the current contract was valid only up to October 31, 2004 and, therefore, rightly Aral terminated the contract by giving six months notice before such expiration. Mr. Sarkar submits that in a suit for enforcement of negative covenant the Court is not bound to grant an interim injunction in every case. Mr. Sarkar, further, submits that Universal knew, long prior to filing of the suit, that Aral insisted that the contract was terminable one and could be terminated by giving six months notice. Aral always proceeded on the basis that the duration of the contract was up to October 31, 2004. Universal never asserted that they were enjoying a fixed duration contract up to 2009. At the highest the contract is up to 2009 and Universal could be adequately compensated by pecuniary damages in the event at the trial it is proved that the order of termination is bad in law. Mr. Sarkar submits that Universal is manufacturing engine oil under the brand name "Haritshakti" and as such on account of termination of the agreement, Universal shall not suffer any loss. Mr. Sarkar in this connection cites the decisions in the cases of Republic Stores (Trade) v. Jagajit Industries Ltd. reported in 81 CWN 646, Cotton Corporation of India Limited v. United Industrial Bank Limited and Ors. , Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd, and Ors. v. Coca Cola Co. and Ors. , Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Texaco Ltd. v. Mulberry Filling Station Ltd. reported in 1972(1) AER 513.

34. On the contrary, it is suggested by the defendants that the contract was valid up to October, 2004 and Aral is within its right to terminate the contract by giving six months prior notice. Consequently, in April, 2004 Aral issued a notice terminating the contract.

35. Prima facie, I find substance in the contention of the defendants that the agreement was valid till October 31, 2004 inasmuch as the Government of India and the Reserve Bank of India were concerned only about payment of royalties to the foreign collaborator and the approvals are to be looked into from the angel. The parties knew all through that the original terms and conditions arrived at between the parties were never disturbed in letter or in spirit; it is clear from a letter issued by Universal on December 28, 1994 to Aral. There is no convincible material available on the records that before the termination of the agreement Universal ever asserted that the contract was valid till 2009.