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

2018 Supreme(Cal) 99

SOUMEN SEN
Lindsay International Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Laxmi Niwas Mittal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiffs : Mr. S.K. Kapoor, Sr. Adv., Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Joy Saha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ravi Kapoor, Adv., Mr. Saunak Mitra, Adv., Ms. Priyanka Prasad, Adv., Mr. S.R. Kakrania, Adv., Mr. Sanjeeb Seni, Adv., Mr. Souvik Kundu, Adv.
For the Respondents:Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Siddhartha Datta, Adv., Mr. Bodhisatta Biswas, Adv., Ms. Suhani Dwivedi, Adv., Mr. Rajiv Lall, Adv. For the Respondent No.41: Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Arunabho Deb, Adv., Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gautam Mitra, Adv., Mr. Soumava Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Arunabho Deb, Adv., Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Debajyoti Datta, Adv., Ms. Anshumala Bansal, Adv., Mr. Rishad Medora, Adv., Mr. Pratik Ghosh, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

Soumen Sen, J.

1. The apparent conflict between the shareholders of the plaintiff No.1 has resulted in the institution of a suit by the plaintiffs seeking specific performance of several agreements between the petitioners and the respondent Nos.1 to 38 and a declaration that the petitioner-Company is exclusively entitled to be the sole purchasing representative in perpetuity of the respondent Nos.2 to 38 for procurement of the goods and services from India. The petitioners have also claimed perpetual injunction restraining the respondent Nos.39 to 42 from acting in breach of negative covenant as pleaded in Paragraph 42 of the Plaint.

2. The reliefs in the suit as well as in this application are based on a plea of pre-incorporated contracts, oral agreements, collaboration agreement and a shareholder’s agreement followed by conduct of the parties for almost 20 years giving a special right in favour of the plaintiff to exclusively supply materials to ArcelorMittal Companies (hereinafter referred to as “AM Companies”) outside India after procuring the materials, inter alia, from the respondent Nos.39 to 42. The plaintiff claims that apart from the agreements pleaded in the last



























































































































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top