Paul, J.- This appeal has been preferred against the order of Padmanabhan, J., on Application No. 2640 of 1978 in C. S. No. 26 of 1978, refusing to revoke the leave to sue granted to the first respondent-plaintiff under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

2. The first respondent-plaintiff, M/s. Gordon Woodroffe and Co., (Madras) Private Limited, filed the suit G. S. No. 26 of 1978 on the original side of this Court against respondents 2 to 4 for a declaration that the termination of the plaintiff’s appointment as the first defendant’s agents at Madras, Kakinada and Visakhapatnam together with the plaintiff’s function as the first defendant’s co-ordinating agent for the first defendant’s trade from India and as the first defendant’s controlling agent for Cuddalore, Masulipatinam. Nagapattinam and Trivandrum is illegal, void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff and for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant or their agents or servants or anybody claiming under or through them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiff, namely, Clan Line Agency for the Ports of Madras, Kakinada and Visakhapatnam together with the plaintiff’s functioning as the first defendant’s coordinating agent for their trade from India and functioning as their controlling agent for Cuddalore, Masulipatnam Nagapattinam and Trivandrum and also restraining the first defendant from taking away the said agency from the plaintiff and from appointing the second or the third defendant or any other person or company or firm as their agents, or in the alternative directing the 1st defendant to pay a sum of Rupees one crore to the plaintiff as and for damages.

3. Among the allegations contained in the plaint, the material ones in so far as this appeal is concerned, are the following: By a written agreement dated 21st September, 1878 entered into between the plaintiff-company and the first defendant, the plaintiff was appointed the sole steamer agent for the Clan Line Steamers Ltd. U.K. and under the agreement the plaintiff acquired 1 /64th share of the Clan Line Vessels ‘Clan Alpine’ and Clan Fraser and accordingly the plaintiff invested large amounts of money for building up and expanding the cargo trade in the three ports of Madras, Kakinada and Visakhapatnam and due to the tremeudous, extraordinary and special efforts made by the plaintiff, the cargo traffic had increased by leaps and bounds and the plaintiff-company was induced to enter into the aforesaid agreement on the basis that the agency was irrevocable and it was on that basis that the Plaintiff expended enormous amounts for building up the agency business: and the plaintiff had always performed the terms of the agency and has always been willing and ready to perform the terms of the agreement. But on 25th October, 1977, the second defendant informed Mr. Vishnu Mohan, one of the Directors of the plaintiff-company that he had received a notice of termination of the agency from the first defendant and on 1st November, 1977 the second defendant showed the notice of termination dated 19th October, 1977. The plaintiff contends that the termination of the agency is arbitrary, caprieious and without any valid reason and for no sufficient cause and the reasons given in the letter of termination were totally unfounded and without any basis and the termination of the agency by first defendant was under the erroneous-assumption that there was a directive from the Reserve Bank of India to discontinue the agency activities from 1st January, 1978 and the first defendant who is persisting in sticking to its decision has Appointed the second defendant as its agent even after knowing that the second defendant bad made mispresentation and had manoeuvred to grab the agency for himself at the expense of the company. The plaintiff further contended that it was entitled to reasonable notice before termination of the agency and also for compensation. It might be noted th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document