Back
2004 Supreme(Cal) 256
High Court Of Calcutta
PRADIPTA RAY, JYOTESH BANERJEE
SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT.LTD - Appellant
Versus
AMM MEDIA WORKS PVT.LTD. - Respondent
F. M. A. T. 2860 Of 2003
Decided On : 04/07/2004
A.C.KAR, B.S.SINHA ROY, CHANCHAL MITRA, DEBASHIS DAS, J.K.SANWANOALA
A mandatory interim order to restore a position prevailing long before the institution of the suit is granted only in exceptional cases.
Headnote:
CONTRACT - AGREEMENT - RENEWAL - INTERIM INJUNCTION - IRREPARABLE LOSS - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - MANDATORY INJUNCTION - RESTORATION OF STATUS QUO - Prima facie case alone not sufficient - Irreparable injury must be material and not compensable in terms of money - Balance of convenience must favor granting injunction - Mandatory injunction to restore status quo granted only in exceptional cases where status quo disturbed to obtain undue advantage or deprive opponent of right and possession on suit institution date.
Fact of the Case:
Selvel Advertising Ltd. entered into an agreement with Analysis Marketing and Management for the execution of a proposed park named 'Theme Park.' The agreement granted Selvel exclusive rights to collect construction, maintenance, and rental charges from sponsors. Selvel paid Rs. 2 lakhs and agreed to pay Rs. 28,000/- monthly. The lease for the park was obtained by Analysis Marketing and Management from the Government of West Bengal for 3 years, renewable after expiry. Two renewals were granted. In 2000, Analysis Marketing and Management was converted into a private limited company, AMM Media Works Pvt. Ltd., and the lease was renewed in its name. On December 21, 1999, representatives of Selvel and AMM Media Works discussed the continuance of the agreement. They agreed to sign a new agreement, Selvel would arrange early payment of AMM dues, AMM agreed not to increase Project Management cost for 3 years, and Selvel agreed to increase the Project Management Cost after 3 years. In March 2000, AMM Media Works handed over the right to procure sponsors and display advertisements to Portland India Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd. and discontinued the arrangement with Selvel. Selvel filed a suit for declaration that the agreement dated April 4, 1995, stands renewed and is continuing and subsisting, and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from obstructing and/or preventing the appellant from securing sponsors, allotting space in the said Theme Park, and from collecting any amount from any sponsor in breach of the terms of agreement dated April 4, 1995. The Trial Court rejected the application for interim injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant was not entitled to an interim order having the effect of disturbing the status quo as was prevailing on the date of institution of the suit. The loss or injury likely to be suffered was not irreparable and could be compensated in terms of money. The balance of convenience and inconvenience did not favor granting an interim order.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to an interim order restoring his legal right and allowing him to exercise those legal rights during pendency of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: An interim order is granted to prevent any alteration of the situation prevailing on the date of institution of the suit or on the date of the application. A mandatory interim order is granted only in exceptional cases where the status quo as on the date of institution of the suit has been subsequently disturbed or changed to obtain an undue advantage or to deprive the opponent of his right and possession on the date of institution of the suit. Loss of business, if any, suffered by the appellant during continuance of the suit can be ascertained and compensated in terms of money.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously within 6 months.
( 1 ) SELVEL Advertising Ltd. the present appellant (plaintiff in the Court below) entered into an agreement dated April 4, 1995 with Analysis marketing and Management, a propietory concern of present respondent No. 2 sri Somdeb Banerjee, (defendant No. 2 in the Court below) for execution of a proposed park named 'theme Park' at B. B. D. Bag Mini Bus Terminus area. Under the said agreement the said Theme Park was to be laid exclusively by the present appellant with the right to bring any sponsor of its choice and the appellant-company secured absolute and exclusive legal right to collect the cost of construction, monthly maintenance and monthly rental charges from such sponsor. As consideration the appellant company paid Rs. 2 lakhs to the respondent No. 2 on April 5, 1995 and agreed to pay Rs. 28,000/- every month to the said respondent No. 2. Although no period was expressly mentioned in the said agreement, it was stipulated in clause 19 of the agreement that:"19. The second party will comply and abide all the conditions contained in the lease deed (signed on 28th September, 1994) with Government of west Bengal and the first party. This also relates to the part of period of contracts and renewals etc".
( 2 ) IT appears that the respondent No. 2 as proprietor of Analysis Marketing and Management obtained a lease dated September 28, 1994 from the government of West Bengal for a period of 3 years renewable after expiry of the said initial period of 3 years for laying, preparing and maintaining the proposed park at B. B. D. Bag Mini Bus Stand. In fact, two renewals were granted by the Government of West Bengal, one from September 28, 1997 to September 27, 2000 and another from September 28, 2000 to September 27, 2003. It, however, appears before the renewal of lease dated August 22, 2000. Analysis marketing and Management was converted into a private limited company by the name AMM Media Works Pvt. Ltd. and Somdeb Banerjee was acting as its chief Executive. In fact, the deed of lease dated August 22, 2000 was entered into between the Government of West Bengal and M/s. AMM Media Works pvt. Ltd. represented by the respondent No. 2.
( 3 ) ON December 21, 1999 the representatives of the present appellant and the respondent No. 2 representing M/s. AMM Media Works Pvt. Ltd. held discussion on further continuance of the agreement dated April 4,1995 and/or the rights and obligations under the said agreement. It was agreed therein :" (A) A new agreement to be signed between Selvel and AMM in the line of agreement between AMM and PWD (Govt. ). (B) Selvel will arrange early payment of AMM dues (7 bills ). (C) AMM agreed to the request of Selvel not increase Project Management cost for 3 years. (D) Selvel agrees to increase reasonable Project Management Cost after 3 years. (E) Some minimum repairing cost to be borne by Selvel by emergency basis. "
( 4 ) IN or about March, 2000 M/s. Portland India Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd. approached M/s. AMM Media Works Pvt. Ltd. with a proposal of obtaining the right of procuring sponsors and displaying advertisements. Upon March 31, 2000 the arrangement with the present appellant continued and thereafter from April 1, 2000 M/s. AMM Media Works Pvt. Ltd. handed over the right of procuring sponsor and displaying advertisements to Portland India Outdoor advertising Pvt. Ltd. and discontinued the arrangement/agreement with the present appellant.
( 5 ) ON or about September 29, 2000 the present appellant initiated a proceeding under section 144 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging illegal obstruction and forcible prevention from carrying maintenance works and displaying hoardings in the said Theme Park. The said proceeding was dismissed on the ground that the subject-matter of the dispute did not come within the scope of section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter on or about March 19, 2001 the present appellant filed Title Suit No. 418 of 2001 in the 7th Bench in
