I.P. Mukerji, J.

1. I have had the privilege to go through the draft judgment prepared by my sister Justice Amrita Sinha. I wholeheartedly agree with it. I would like to add a few observations of my own.

2. The plaintiff/appellant are the dealers of Hyundai motor cars. The business of their principal is said to be in the name and style of Mukesh Hyundai. The third and fourth defendants/respondents are husband and wife and 100% shareholders in the first and second defendants/respondents, the business of which is building and development of property. The fifth defendant/respondent is a partnership firm. The third and fourth defendants/respondents are also partners in this partnership firm.

3. The plaintiff/appellant states the following the plaint. On 1st October, 2012 they received a letter from Hyundai Motor India Ltd. They enquired of the plaintiff/appellant if they could set up a dealership for passenger cars in the Howrah district of West Bengal. Hyundai required 6000 square feet area for a showroom and 12000 square feet for a work shop and sale of spare parts.

4. On 4