By letter dated Octo ber 13, 1988, the companypany terminated his agency with effect from October 14, 1988.
The plaintiff is certainly entitled to carry on its business at No.
The fact that the business has been temporarily shifted to another place in view of the threat meted out to the plain tiffs agent will number disentitle the plaintiff to get injunction.
The godown was put in possession of the respondent for the purpose of carrying on his agency business of the companypany.
The companypany companyld also utilise the services of employees engaged by the respondent.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.1989 of the Madras High Court in O.S.A. No.
He was informed that the companypany would be taking possession of the godown and carrying on the business on its own.
10, Srinivasan Road, T. Nagar, Madras.
4 177 of 1989.
But the Division Bench by judgment delivered on March 28, 1989, vacated that temporary injunction.
The companyclusion of learned Judges is largely based on the actual possession of the premises claimed by the Company.
Permanent injuction restraining the respondent from interfering was also sought for.
He does number claim that he took possession as a lessee from the owner.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench.
It is ot open to the defendant to prevent the plaintiff from carrying on such business.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, V.G. Pragasam, Satya Mitra Garg, V. Prakash and R. Venkataramani for the Respondent.
These facts are indeed number disputed.
Pending suit, the companypany moved the High Court for temporary injunction.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. Special Leave granted.
10, Srinivasan Road, T. Nagar, Madras 600017, having taken the premises on lease.
The appellant companypany under the name as Southern Roadways Ltd. is engaged in the business of transport of goods and parcels to differ ent places in Southern India.
The learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in Original Suit C.S. No.
The question raised in this appeal is whether the agent after revocation of his authority is entitled to remain in possession of the premises of the principal and interfere with the business thereof.
The facts are substantially undisputed.
The respondent was thus restrained by means of temporary injunction from interfering with the companypanys transport business in goods and parcels at the suit premises.
The defendant does number claim to be the owner of the premises number does he put forward any rival title as against the plaintiff.
The first related to legal right of the companypany to carry on its business after termination of agency of the respondent the second companycerned the factum of taking actual possession of the premises on October 15, 1988.
The Division Bench company sisting of Sathidev and Padmini Jesudurai, JJ.,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The judge said As pointed out already, in this case, there is numberdenial of the lease arrangement between the owner of the premises and the plaintiff.
1317 of 1988 has granted temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the appellants transport business.
accepted the appeal and vacated the temporary injuction.
S.M. Krishnan respondent was one such agent appointed at Madras city.
The temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the possession of the premises and the business thereof.
The only claim of the defendant is that he is in pos session and that he has been paying the rent to the owner.
By subsequent letter, he was also intimated that the companypany has taken possession of the godown on October 15, 1988 and another agent called R. Sundarajan, was appointed in his place.
K. Venugopal, K. Chandra Mouli, Ms. Meenakshi Sundaram and K.K. Mani for the Appellant.
The respondent took up the matter in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
Clause XI provides for his removal from service at any time without numberice.
As per the agreement perhaps at the suggestion of the respondent, the Company took on lease a godown at No.
The respondent however, prevented R. Sundarajan and also the companypany from carrying on business at the godown premises.
48 of 1989.
In the companyrse of the companypanys audit, it was discovered that the respondent had mismanaged the business and misap propriated the income of the companypany.
The suit was based on two separate grounds.
The companypany, therefore, had to institute a suit for declaration of its right to carry on business in the said premises.
