In the contract neither terms settled nor area of operation defined.

C. SHIVAPPA, J.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 23-6-1998 passed on O.A. No. 254 of 1998 in C.S. No. 375 of 1998, by the learned single Judge on the original jurisdiction of this Court.

2. The appellant as plaintiff has filed the suit seeking for a declaration that the letter sent by the respondent No. 2, dated 4-5-1998, terminating the contract (Contract for Time Sales) in respect of the telecast of two serials, namely, 'Balachander China Thirai' and 'Marmadesam', as illegal and void. The second relief which has been sought for is a consequential declaration that the agreement dated 30-5-1997 entered into between the appellant and the respondent No. 2 is valid and subsisting in respect of the above mentioned serial and further consequently that the appellant is exclusively entitled to sell the free commercial time allocated to the abovesaid Tele Serials on any Television Channel. In the light of the abovesaid prayers, consequential relief of permanent injunction has also been sought for and as an interim measure, prayed for an interim injunction pending trial of the suit.

3. On an earlier occasion, the appellant herein prayed for an order of interim injunction and the matter came up before this Court on 26-5-1998 and interim injunction was granted till 10-6-1998. Aggrieved against the said order, respondents 1 and 2 preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A. No. 86 of 1998. Along with the said appeal, they filed C.M.P. No. 7295 of 1998 to suspend the interim injunction granted by the learned single Judge. The Division Bench, by an order dated 2-6-1998 suspended the interim injunction granted on condition that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein should deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the credit of the suit and posted the appeal for hearing on 16-6-1998. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant herein filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 10225 of 1998. When the matter came up for hearing on 10-6-1998, the Apex Court observed that,

"this matter has now become infructuous because the order of injunction itself was made operative till 10-6-1998. Virtually the appeal filed before the Madras High Court has also become infructuous and it shall be treated as disposed of accordingly".

and directed the learned single Judge to hear the application for injunction afresh and after hearing both the parties to decide the application on merits without being influenced by the order of the learned single Judge and also by the order of the Division Bench. The learned single Judge declined to grant the injunction and while dismissing the application, observed that the letter of intent dated 30-5-1997 prima facie appears to be a proposal and not a concluded contract and even otherwise, the comparative mischief or inconvenience which is like to arise from withholding the injunction will be greater than that which is likely to arise from granting it. Hence, this appeal is before us. Though there is an application in this appeal seeking for an interim injunction, this Court ordered on 14-7-1998 for hearing of the main appeal itself, since hearing of the application for interim order and hearing of the appeal consume more or less the same time. Hence, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

4. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the negative covenant or stipulations contained in the letter of intent dated 30-5-1997 can be enforced by grant of an interim injunction disregarding the balance of convenience, irreparable loss or comparative hardship ?

5. The learned senior counsel Mr. P. P. Rao, appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that although Clause (18) of the Joint Venture Agreement, dated 30th May, 1997 postulated a further agreement setting out details of procedural, functional and operational issues not later than 7-6-1997 and it was not admittedly executed, it did not stand in the way of operation of the Joint Venture Agreement whic