Advocates Appeared:
D.Hasija, N.K.KAUL, Rajesh Rai, TRIDIP PAIS

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The case involves a dispute over agreements related to the manufacturing and marketing of herbal medicines, specifically "glunorm" and "dbnorm" capsules, between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff claims exclusive marketing rights, while the defendant denies breach and alleges non-performance by the plaintiff (!) (!) .

2. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to adhere to contractual obligations, including delayed delivery, inconsistent billing, and failure to supply promotional materials, which hampered the plaintiff's marketing efforts and international trade prospects (!) .

3. The defendant contends that the plaintiff did not fulfill financial commitments, delayed payments, and did not lift the agreed stock quantities, leading to the termination of the marketing agreements. The defendant also claims that the plaintiff suppressed material facts regarding the termination notices and communications (!) (!) .

4. The court found that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts, including notices of termination of the marketing rights, which were received but not disclosed to the court. This suppression was deemed to disqualify the plaintiff from obtaining discretionary relief such as an injunction (!) (!) .

5. The court emphasized that a party seeking discretionary relief must approach with clean hands and full disclosure of all material facts. Concealment or suppression of relevant information can lead to denial of such relief (!) (!) .

6. The court observed that the agreements for exclusive marketing rights were already terminated prior to the filing of the suit, and the plaintiff's claim that the agreements were still in force was incorrect. The misrepresentation influenced the initial grant of ex parte injunction (!) .

7. The court noted that the doctrine of perpetuity should not be applied to commercial agreements involving mutual trust, especially in business relationships where one party's inaction could severely damage the other’s business (!) .

8. Considering the balance of convenience, the court held that the defendant would suffer irreparable loss if restrained from selling their products, while the plaintiff could be adequately compensated if their claim for exclusive rights was upheld. The stocks of the products remaining unsold further supported vacating the injunction (!) .

9. Ultimately, the court vacated the ex parte injunction, ruling that the plaintiff was not entitled to discretionary relief due to suppression of material facts and misrepresentation. The defendant's application to vacate the injunction was allowed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs (!) .

In summary, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an injunction, primarily because of non-disclosure of material facts regarding the termination of the agreements and the potential harm to the defendant's business interests.