SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(Cal) 20

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ramendra Mohan Datta
LIFE PHARMACEUTICALS (PRIVATE) LTD. - Appellant
Versus
BENGAL MEDICAL HALL - Respondent
Suit 319  Of  1970
Decided On : JANUARY 20, 1971

Advocates Appeared:
B.C.Dutt

The principle of constructive res judicata can be applied in an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Headnote:

STAY OF SUIT - SECTION 10 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - AGREEMENT APPOINTING REGIONAL DISTRIBUTOR - VALIDITY - CHALLENGE - SUBSEQUENT SUIT - STAY - RES JUDICATA - SECTION 10 AND 11 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff company appointed the defendant firm as the Chief Regional Distributor of its products. Later, the plaintiff company terminated the agreement and canceled the distributorship. The defendant firm filed three suits in the Alipore Court challenging the termination and seeking various reliefs. The plaintiff company then filed the present suit in the Calcutta High Court, challenging the validity of the distributorship agreement on the ground that it was void and illegal under Section 294(1) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the plaintiff company could have challenged the validity of the distributorship agreement in the three suits filed by the defendant firm in the Alipore Court. The court also held that the principle of constructive res judicata would apply if the plaintiff company failed to raise the issue of the validity of the agreement in the Alipore suits. Therefore, the court stayed the present suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff company could have challenged the validity of the distributorship agreement in the three suits filed by the defendant firm in the Alipore Court? 2. Whether the principle of constructive res judicata would apply if the plaintiff company failed to raise the issue of the validity of the agreement in the Alipore suits?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the subject matter of the present suit could have been agitated in the Money Suit filed by the defendant firm in the Sub-Judge's Court at Alipore, which had the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter of the present suit. 2. The court held that the test to be applied in deciding an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is whether the matter in the later suit will be res judicata if the prior suit is taken to have been decreed in the manner as prayed in the plaint.

Final Decision: The court stayed the present suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

RAMENDRA MOHAN DATTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of this suit filed on or about July 28, 1970.

( 2 ) THE facts shortly are that on or about July 19, 1966 the plaintiff Life Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. (hereinafter called the plaintiff company) appointed the defendant (hereinafter called the defendant firm) the Chief Regional Distributor of the products of the plaintiff company for the East Zone. On or about December 1969 the defendant firm came to know that one Messrs. Hindusthan Medical Syndicate was appointed as stockist by the plaintiff company in respect of its products. The defendant firm protested against such appointment with the result that on or about January 5, 1970 the plaintiff company terminated the agreement and canqelled the Chief Regional Distributorship granted to the defendant firm.

( 3 ) ON or about January 6, 1970, the defendant firm filed the Title Suit No. 5 of 1970 in the Alipore Court (hereinafter called the said first suit) against the plaintiff company, inter alia, for a declaration that the appointment of Messrs. Hindusthan Medical Syndicate as stockist was illegal and void and also asked for permanent injunction. An interlocutory application for injunction was made in the said Title Suit No. 5 of 1970 and on or about January 16, 1970, an order was made thereon whereby the plaintiff company was restrained from making direct sales or supply to the stockists or distributors in West Bengal including the said Messrs. Hindusthan Medical Syndicate except through the defendant. On or about January 29. 1970 the plaintiff company filed its written statement in the said Title Suit No. 5 of 1970.

( 4 ) IT is to be remembered that neither in the application for injunction resulting in the order dated January 16, 1970, nor in the aforesaid written statement did the plaintiff company ever challenge the validity of the said agreement for distributorship as it did in the present suit filed in this Court.

( 5 ) ON or about June 15. 1970 the defendant company filed the Money Suit being Suit No. 33 of 1970 (hereinafter called the said second suit) against the plaintiff company before the Sub-Judge's Court at Alipore, inter alia, for realisation of unpaid commission to the extent of Rs. 70,000/ -. On or about July 2, 1970 the defendant firm filed another Title Suit being No. 208 of 1970 before the Munsiff s Court at Alipore (hereinafter called the said third suit), against the plaintiff company inter alia, for a declaration, that the notice of termination dated January 5, 1970 was illegal, void, inoperative and not binding on the defendant firm and also for permanent injunction etc. In the said third suit an ad-interim order was made by granting temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff company from giving effect to the purported letter of termination dated January 5, 1970. All the said three suits were filed on the basis that there was a valid and enforceable agreement by and between, the parties.

( 6 ) THE present suit was filed on or about July 28, 1970 by the plaintiff company, inter alia, for a declaration that the appointment of the defendant firm by the letter dated July 19, 1966 was void and illegal on the ground, that the said agreement appointing the defendant as the Regional Distributor was void and illegal as being in contravention of Section 294 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956. It is to be noted that the plaintiff company for the first time challenged the said agreement on the aforesaid ground as being void and illegal. The plaintiff company made an application in this suit for an order of injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing the said agreement and from proceeding with the said three suits filed before the Alipore Court. On August 11, 1970 the said application was finally disposed of by making no order thereon save and except giving directions for expeditious hearing of the said suit. The said order was made without prej










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top