M/S. Arpan Trading Company vs General Manager, Hindustan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7064 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:28970]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15482/2019 M/s. Arpan Trading Company, 55, Purani Dhan Mandi, Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar Through Proprietor Jitendra Kumar Garg. Aged 51 Years

----Petitioner Versus General Manager, Hindustan Uniliver Ltd., Titanium, First Floor, Shalimar Corp Park, Vidhyut Khand, Gomati Nagar, Luckhnow (U.p.).

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwajeet Singh for Mr. Shree Kant Verma

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI Order 12/09/2023

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:-

"(i) The impugned judgment dated 26.07.2019 (Annex.-6) passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar as well as order dated 05.11.2016 (Annex.-4) passed by learned Civil Judge, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC may kindly be ordered to be allowed as prayed for.

(iii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction along with the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC while stating that the respondent- defendant company is manufacturing the domestic appliances and

[2023:RJ-JD:28970] (2 of 4) [CW-15482/2019]

is appointing distributor stockist in various areas. The respondent company by executing agreement with the petitioner has appointed redistribution stockist for Suratgarh Area. The petitioner firm is selling the products of respondent company since 2005. The respondent company after satisfying with the work of the petitioner firm, in the year 2009, issued certificate of excellence of gold tier in appreciation of outstanding performance in GM, 1 contest 2009 was awarded to the petitioner firm. The respondent company in the illegal manner and without proper reason, issued notice to the petitioner firm for terminating the redistribution stockiest and the petitioner firm being aggrieved prayed for temporary injunction against the respondent by filing an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

3. The respondents filed reply to the said application and the learned trial Court after hearing the arguments of the parties dismissed the application vide order dated 05.11.2016.

4. The petitioner preferably an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar against the order dated 05.11.2016 and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 26.07.2019. The petitioner-firm being aggrieved of the said order, has preferred the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent company while invoking the condition No.17.1 of the agreement, terminated the agreement without assigning any reason and simply by giving two months' notice to the petitioner firm. He further submits that the agreement dated 20.04.2016 executed between the parties was never provided to the petitioner firm and therefore, the petitioner firm is not aware of the provisions as mentioned in the said agreement and thus, the impugned notices deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner firm is selling the products of respondent in the market

[2023:RJ-JD:28970] (3 of 4) [CW-15482/2019]

since 2005 and there was no complaint against the petitioner firm and cancellation of the agreement between the parties, would cause hardship to the petitioner firm as his reputation in the market would be ruined and jeopardized.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC stating that the petitioner firm has filed the suit for specific performance of the contract but the petitioner-firm has chosen to file a suit for permanent injunction and the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC is not maintainable. He further submits that the respondent company had issued the impugned notice 08.08.2016 in respect of terminating the agreement entered between the parties and thus, the petitioner firm prayed for restraining the respondent company to terminate the redistribution stockiest agreement between the parties and thus the issue in regard to maintainability of the application of the petitioner is justified and hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. This Court finds that in the agreement dated 20.04.2016, there was a categorical condition is laid down under clause 17.1 which is as under:-

"This agreement may be terminated by either party without assigning any reason, by giving two months written notice, or such other notice period as it is mutually agreeable between the parties. However, under no circumstances, such notice period shall exceed two months."

Thus, the respondent company while invoking the clause 17.1 of the agreement has issued the impugned notice to the petitioner firm. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner firm that it was not given the copy of agreement is not sustainable as

[2023:RJ-JD:28970] (4 of 4) [CW-15482/2019]

the learned Court below has observed that in the agreement, both the parties had signed. It is not a case of the petitioner that the agreement was not at all entered between the parties and when the petitioner has put in signatures on the agreement, there is no iota of doubt that the conditions laid down in clause 17.1 would not have been thoroughly gone through and read by the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent cannot said to have committed any fault in issuing the notice to the petitioner firm while invoking Clause 17.1 of the said agreement.

10. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

11. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 10-amit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)