( 1 ) BY this order I will dispose of I. A. No. 7411/96 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code. for interim injunction and I. A. No. 8466/96 under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. filed by the defendant for vacating the ex-parte ad interim injunction granted on August 16, 1996.

( 2 ) BY the interim order dated 16. 8. 96 the defendant was restrained from acting on behalf of. H1-:#:-I. As. 7411 and 8466/96 or dealing or entering into contract with Sidel and Husky directly.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff is a private limited company and carries on work inter alia as Agents and Consultants for various manufacturers for promoting their products and sale services.

( 4 ) SIDEL-SA a company incorporated and registered in France, who manufacturers various types of machines including Blow Moulding machines and equipment had entered into a contract of agency dated July 28, 1994 with the plaintiff which was made effective from 1. 3. 1994 vide Sidel s letter dated 29. 7. 1994.

( 5 ) ONE Husky Injection Moulding System SA of Luxembuourg (for short Husky) which is also manufacturer of injection moulding systems for preforms etc. had also entered into another contract of agency dated July 1, 1994.

( 6 ) THE terms of both the agencies were in identical terms and the agency was for a period of 2 years with renewal clause.

( 7 ) THE defendant carries on business under the name and style of High Tech Consultants and has a consultant and Manufacturers business, and it is alleged, that he has been involved in various projects and works with the plaintiff company since 1989.

( 8 ) FOR carrying out the work of agency for various clients including Sidel and Husky Plaintiff had a subsidiary unit known as Petequip. After these aforesaid two agency contracts were taken, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to work on certain terms which were reduced into writing vide letter dated 30th July, 1994 on commission basis to be paid by Petequip to the defendant at the rates and terms as specified in this agreement.

( 9 ) AFTER about a year s working of the two agencies there were some comments made by Sidel and Husky as well as by the defendant to the plaintiff about the unsatisfactory working of existing arrangement and a request was made to suitably modify the same on the terms which would be acceptable to all the parties.

( 10 ) IN pursuance of these comments, it appears certain discussions took place between the Mr. Gautam Mahajan, Defendant and one Mr. Debashish Bhaduri and the proposed Understanding/arrangement arrived at between them was reduced into writing in the form of a letter on 28. 7. 1995 which was signed by all these three persons. This letter was sent to both Sidel and Husky. This arrangement though appreciated by Husky and Sidel in letter dated 24. 8. 1995 and FAX dated 28. 8. ,1995, respectively but their acceptance was not conveyed to the other parties.

( 11 ) ARTICLE 10 of the two agency agreements between the plaintiff and Sidel and plaintiff and Husky provided for duration of the contract as under:-

"article 10- Duration of the contract 1) This contract is valid for two years and will be renewable automatically for similar periods unless written notice of cancellation is given by either party before six months from the expiry of the contract period. "

( 12 ) AND terms about extent and limits of the sole agency as agreed is contained in Article 7 which reads as under:

"article 7-Extent and Limits of the Sole Agency. 1) In the territory granted to the Agent with exclusivity, the Manufacturer prohibits himself from ceding to anyone else the agency or the sale of equipment stipulated in the contract. (Manufacturer means Sidel and Husky and Agent means Petequip in two contracts) Case of the plaintiff is that the agreement between the plaintiff and Sidel was made effective from 1. 3. 1994 and this was valid for a period of 2 years,i. e. , up to the end of Febr