1994 Supreme(P&H) 628

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.C.Garg, J.
Avtar Krishan Puri, Managing Director, Devi Dass Gopal Krishan Limited
Versus
R.L.Sharma
Civil Revision No. 1286 of 1994,
C.M. No. 3144 of 1994,
Decided On : JULY 26, 1994

A chemist appointed under the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, 1937 has locus standi to file a suit for injunction to restrain a company from selling oil without Agmark label.

Headnote:

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (GRADING AND MARKING) ACT, 1937 - SECTION 4 - GENERAL GRADING AND MARKING RULES, 1988 - RULE 10 - LOCUS STANDI - CHEMIST APPOINTED UNDER THE ACT - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN COMPANY FROM SELLING OIL WITHOUT AGMARK LABEL - MAINTAINABILITY - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING GRANT OF - DUTY OF COURT TO RECORD REASONS - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH - EFFECT.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, a chemist appointed under the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, 1937, filed a suit against the company and its directors alleging that they were selling oil packages with the trade mark of P only and without having Agmark label or Agmark replica on them, without his knowledge and thereby causing loss to the Government of India and in violation of the Rules. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as necessary parties had not been impleaded as defendants and notice under Section 80 of the Code had not been issued before the institution of the suit. The District Judge allowed the appeal and granted temporary injunction restraining the respondents from selling or packing for sale mustard oil having P trade mark without Agmark replica/label till further orders.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the trial court acted in haste in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code and that it ought to have decided the matter after taking written statement from the defendants where all objections including that of territorial jurisdiction, locus standi of the plaintiff to file suit and mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties could be taken and thereafter considered the matter either by framing a preliminary issue or otherwise. The court also held that the District Judge erred in granting ex parte temporary injunction without recording any reason whatsoever in support of the grant of the order and in continuing the injunction till the disposal of the application by the trial court.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had locus standi to file the suit? 2. Whether the District Judge erred in granting ex parte temporary injunction without recording any reason whatsoever in support of the grant of the order? 3. Whether the District Judge erred in continuing the injunction till the disposal of the application by the trial court?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff had locus standi to file the suit as the acts of defendants 5 to 7 have rendered him liable for prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and that it was his duty as a Chemist under the General Grading Marketing Rules, 1988 to ensure compliance of the conditions of certificate of Agmark granted to the Company under the provisions of Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marketing) Act, 1937. 2. The court held that the District Judge erred in granting ex parte temporary injunction without recording any reason whatsoever in support of the grant of the order. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Shiv Kumar Chadhas case (supra) which held that when statute itself required reasons to be recorded, the court cannot ignore that requirement by saying that if reasons are recorded, it may amount to expression of opinion in favour of the plaintiff before hearing the defendants. 3. The court held that the District Judge erred in continuing the injunction till the disposal of the application by the trial court. The court held that the injunction could not be granted as the plaintiff had no personal interest.

Final Decision: The court set aside the ex parte proceedings against the petitioners and directed the trial court to dispose of the injunction matter on the date already fixed in the suit or within a day or two thereof. If for any reason, the plaintiff or the defendants other than the petitioners delay the disposal of injunction matter as aforesaid, the injunction already granted shall stand vacated, otherwise it would continue till the disposal of the injunction application by the trial court.