S. Ravindra Bhar, J.

LA. No. 525/2008 (Exemption C. Fee)

Learned Counsel states that the balance Court fee would be paid during the course of the day. Let the application disposed in terms of the statement.

LA. No. 524/2008 (Org. Documents)

Allowed, subjected to the petitioner filing the originals within six weeks.

LA. No. 523/2008 (Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC)

1. Issue notice Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the defendant-respondent. Counsel states that he would not be filing a separate reply to the application and has instructions to oppose it today. With the consent of the counsel for the parties the application was heard finally.

2. The plaintiff-applicant seeks a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their employees, representatives etc. from interfering and obstructing its uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the its business from premises being G-7, Janak Palace, Janak Puri, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as suit premises). In this application, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in similar terms is claimed.

3. The plaintiff avers that some time in October-November, 2005 it was on the lookout for premises for running a store from Janak Puri area. The Defendant-Respondent was introduced to it. According to the plaintiff the premises was leasehold and could not be sub-leased. However, the defendant allegedly assured it that the plaintiff could be in full control of the premises and that he would not interfere with the day-to-day working of the business. In the circumstances, the parties entered into an agreement on 16.12.2005. The defendant/respondent was styled and described as a franchisee.

.4. The applicant-plaintiff has relied upon conditions of the agreement which, inter alia, provided that the parties agree that all stocks of product would be the property of the plaintiff; the defendant (franchisee) would have no right or claim (clause 2); the franchisee-respondent was entitled to receive Rs. 1, 25,000/- or 5% of the maximum retail value (after deductions of all taxes, etc) of the products sold in the store whichever was higher. The plaintiff also a greed to pay the franchisee an interest free deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs, the equivalent of four months guaranteed income, (clause 4). By clause 6 parties agreed that if the franchisee respondent failed to refund the security deposit, the plaintiff could, without prejudice to its right to recover any amounts and to legal remedies, be entitled to use the premises till such time the security deposit amounts were adjusted.

5. Other terms included the stipulation concerning increase in guaranteed monthly commission by 15% after every three years (clause 7); that the - Franchisee was to make available the store to the applicant for marketing and selling its goods, subject to the condition that possession of the same for all intents and purposes would remain with the Respondent-Franchisee. Clause 9 stipulated that the Agreement would be effective from 1.1.2006 and would be enforced for three years upto 31.12.2008. Clause 10 entitled the plaintiff applicant to renovate the interior of the shop according to its design, provided that they did not alter the existing structure; clause 11 obliged the plaintiff to ensure the premises were maintained in a clean and neat fashion; clause 13 stipulated that the running, managing and day to day affairs of the outlet would be the sole responsibility of the plaintiff which also was liable, by clause 15 to obtain appropriate sales tax registration etc in its name at its costs.

6. The other important condition embodied in clause 26 is to the effect that the parties i.e. the Franchisee as well as the applicant were not entitled to terminate the agreement for a period of one year, after which termination was possible at any time by giving notice of three months in writing to the other party. It was further provided that if the Franchisee terminated the agreement or it expired because of efflux of time, the