JUDGMENT :

Shekhar B. Saraf, J.

1. G.A No. 725 of 2019 in C.S No. 50 of 2019 and G.A 733 of 2019 in C.S No. 51 of 2019 are both taken up for hearing simultaneously as the two applications are relating to similar cause of action in relation to the same plaintiff/company (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") and a common defendant. In C.S 50 of 2019 the common defendant is the defendant no. 5 while in C.S 51 of 2019 the common defendant is defendant no.2. This defendant is the employee of the plaintiff company (hereinafter referred to as "the employee"). Defendant no. 1 in C.S 50 of 2019 is a partnership firm while defendants 2 to 4 are the partners of the above partnership firm. These defendants were acting as distributors for various goods of the plaintiff company under the flagship brand of "Tata Paras". Similarly in C.S 51 of 2019 the defendant no. 1 is the distributor company. The defendant no. 1 to 4 in C.S No. 50 of 2019 and the defendant no. 1 in C.S 51 of 2019 are hereinafter referred to, for the sake of convenience, singularly as "the distributor no. 1" and "the distributor no. 2" respectively and jointly as "the distributors".

2. At the very outset, it is to be stated that this matter is being heard at the ad interim stage. I had given an option to the defendants in both the suits to file short affidavits providing an undertaking that they shall not alienate their immovable property pending disposal of the interlocutory applications. However, the defendants refused to do so and desired to argue the matter out without filing any affidavits as they were unwilling to give any undertaking at this stage.

3. The brief facts of the case are narrated below to come to a proper understanding of the present matter:-

A. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of industrial chemicals, nutraceuticals and agricultural solutions including fertilizers. The petitioner has appointed dealers throughout the country to facilitate the sale of these products. The distributors are engaged in purchase of these products from the petitioner for sale in various parts of West Bengal. The employee of the petitioner had served in various positions including as a Senior Accounts Officer and finally served as Deputy Manager (Accounts).

B. In order to promote sale of its products, timely payment of dues and to compensate dealers for arranging their own transport, including expenditure incurred by them towards freight, local handling charges, lifting charges and the like, the petitioner in its usual course of business provided for rebates and discounts. Such rebates and discounts were accounted and labeled as 'credit' or 'credit note/s" in the SAP system of the petitioner. Providing of such rebates and/ or discounts is a usual practice followed in the agriculture solutions industry. The credit notes which were issued to dealers were adjusted against the dues of such dealers to the petitioner on account of the price to be paid for supply of the petitioner's products.

C. The petitioner had periodically issued price circulars for different fertilizers wherein the amounts of discounts/rebates were predetermined. The rebates and discounts, which were referred to as 'credit" or "credit note/s" in the SAP system of the petitioner, were solely determined from the price circulars issued by the petitioner for various fertilizers and different products. Price circulars, as and when issued by the petitioner, were intimated and furnished to the Sales Managers of the petitioner, who, thereupon informed the sales executives of the respective territories of such price circulars. The respective sales executives informed all dealers within their territory about the price circulars issued by the petitioner. No other discounts or rebate of any manner whatsoever was provided by the petitioner, other than the ones indicated in the price