Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. It is incorporated in the plaint that till recently these actions of aggressive sales, promotion and advertising were within the legal parameters and within acceptable worldwide and Indian marketing practices. However, over the past six months the plaintiffs have found that the defendants have been resorting not only to unethical business practices, but the defendants' actions in most cases constitute tortious interference in the business of the plaintiffs.

6. It is further mentioned in the plaint that the defendants have entered into a conspiracy to undertake concerted action against the plaintiffs to damage the plaintiffs' business interests in an unethical or illegal manner. It is alleged that the defendants are guilty of the tort of conspiracy too.

18. On the basis of the aforesaid sequence of events Pepsi tried to make out a case against Coke and submitted that the actions of Coke amounted to tortious interference in the business of Pepsi. Pepsi had also mentioned that Plaintiff No.3 had an agreement with one Shrinathji Sales for distribution of Pepsi products in various long distance trains, emanating out of Ahmedabad Railway station. It is alleged that in March 1998, the officials of Coke, approached the said distribution partner of Pepsi and offered to pay an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs plus for the fulfillment of any other requirements of the distribution partner in consideration of the said distribution partner breaking his contract with Pepsi. However, the said distribution partner refused the offer and wrote to Pepsi vide letter dated 9.3.1998 informing it of the incident.

32. It is mentioned that competition is not only justified and permissible in any free market economy, but is also in the interest of millions of consumers. It has been specifically denied that for the past six months or so the defendants have been resorting to business practices which are unethical, illegal, and constitute tortious interference in the business of the plaintiffs. It is also denied that the practices and actions referred to in the plaint constitute tortious interference in the business. It is also incorporated that the answering defendant or the other defendants are only interested in furthering their own business interests, which in the circumstances are wholly justified and proper.

131. He placed reliance on Mogul Steamship Co. Vs. McGregor, Gow & Co. and others (1891) (4) All ER 263 (HL) which recognises that, in the absence of unlawful means, a trader could not be held liable for these torts if his actions be motivated by this own gain in furtherance of free competition.

132. Mr. Chagla has also drawn my attention to the judgment in People's Security Life Insurance Co. Vs. Milton S. Hooks (1988) 322 N.C. 216; 367 S.E. 2nd 647. In this case the Supreme Court of North Carolina held that a claim for tortious interference would not be lie where the defendant had only offered the plaintiff's employees job opportunities which induced them to terminate their terminable at will contracts and by locating these employees in their previously assigned territories. The Court observed as under: