The main legal point established is that a determinable contract cannot be specifically enforced, and damages may be the adequate relief in case of termination.

( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of the application of the plaintiff IA 3848 of 2006 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil procedure seeking restrain against the defendants terminating agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts to comprehend the disputes between the parties are that the plaintiff contended he is one of the market leaders in handling international air and sea cargo/courier and approached the defendant No. 1 with the business proposals. The plaintiff asserted that the deliberations between the plaintiff and the defendant finally led to plaintiff being appointed as an authorized agents by defendant No. 1 for the purposes of handling cargo/courier business. Plaintiff was intimated by an e-mail dated 24th October, 2005 about his appointment as an authorized agent of the defendant no. 1. The appointment of the plaintiff as an authorized agent was subject to the plaintiff company furnishing a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- and plaintiff giving two undated cheques for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- each. Subsequently, condition of two undated cheques of Rs. 5,00,000/- was waived and plaintiff was asked to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/. The plaintiff submitted a bank guarantee which is valid from 27th October, 2005 till 26th October, 2006. Since the plaintiff complied with the terms for appointment as authorized agent, he was appointed as agent by defendant No. 1 for the period commencing from 27th october, 2005 to 26th October, 2006 and renewable thereafter.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF asserted that after appointment as an authorized agent of the defendant No. 1, he is booking huge quantity of cargo/courier. As most of the cargoes are booked on urgent/priority basis the same are booked only on as late as morning/afternoon of the night when the cargo has to go for its final destination. Plaintiff is contended to have performed exceptionally well. The plaintiff has made the highest bookings in terms of quantify and in terms of value with defendant No. 1.

( 4 ) THE grievance of the plaintiff is that on 30th March, 2006, a phone call was received from defendant No. 3 intimating the Managing Director of the plaintiff company that the contract/appointment as an authorized agent was being terminated with immediate effect from 1st April, 2006. The said phone call is alleged to have been received by the plaintiff around 11. 30 a. m. around which time the plaintiff was busy procuring bookings from its customers for consignment to be booked on flight on the night of 30th March, 2006. The plaintiff assertion is that he made highest bookings in terms of quantify and in terms of value with defendant No. 1 and there was no and could not be any reason to terminate the relationship between the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff. The Managing Director of the plaintiff company therefore, sought an explanation and reason for this abrupt and illegal decision but no positive reply was given nor any formal communication was received by the plaintiff.

( 5 ) THE assertion of the plaintiff is that initially he was appointed as an authorized agent by defendant No. 1 for an initial period of one year commencing from 27th October, 2005 up to 26th October, 2006 which was further renewable. Consequently, the plaintiff company submitted a bank guarantee for a sum of rs. 15. 00 lakh on the prescribed form on 27th October, 2005 payable by Punjab national Bank, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. The plea of the plaintiff is that after being appointed as an authorized agent, he contacted various business houses and cargo companies who had large consignments to courier/cargo to london.

( 6 ) ON account of exigencies of circumstances and urgency involved, the consignments were booked only as late as morning/afternoon of the night on which they were placed on board of plane to their final destination. The plaintiff company had been intimating the defendant No. 1 between