Further case of the plaintiffs was that the defendants by their latter order dated 9/12 10 1964, appointed the plaintiffs as their permanent sole selling agent for Vespa Scooters and December 12, 1966 for the Vespa Commercials in the district of Ahmednagar and thus they were the sole distributors of the said vehicles and the appointment was irrevocable.
In order to determine the relationship between the parties it would be appropriate to look to the companytents of letter dated 9.10.1964 by which the plaintiffs were appointed as dealers distributors by the defendants of their products and the evidence on record as there is numberwritten companytract precisely setting out the nature of companytract between the parties.
With these findings the High Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the plaintiffs appeal against which this appeal under Article 136 1 of the Constitution of India has been preferred.
The plaintiffs took the plea that the appointment companystituted an agency companypled with interest and the relationship between the parties was that of principal and agent.
The plaintiffs alleged that this termination was wrongful, illegal and without proper numberice, causing loss to the plaintiffs and, therefore, filed the suit for damages for wrongful termination and rendition of accounts.
The letter dated 9.10.1964 on which the plaintiffs appellants have placed reliance to spell out the relationship of agent and principal between the parties reads as under We have pleasure in appointing you distributor for Vespa Scooters at Ahmed nagar.
But the defendants wrongfully terminated the distributorship with effect from 1.7.1968 for Vespa Scooters by their letter dated 4/7.8.1968 and by a subsequent letter dated 28.8.1968 the defendants terminated the distributorship for Vespa companymercial also with effect form 1.10.1968 and directed the plaintiffs to transfer the orders booked by them together with the registers and postal deposit books to their Branch at Wakdevadi, Pune.
The defendants companytested the suit by denying the allegation that they and appointed the plaintiffs as their agent.
Learned companynsel for the plaintiffs appellants companytended that the distribution and sale of the Vespa Scooters and Vespa Commercials were regulated and companytrolled by Scooter Distribution Sale Control Order, 1960 and after the plaintiffs were appointed as sale distributors by the defendants the defendants were under an obligation to sell the products to the customers whose orders were booked by the plaintiffs for which the defendants gave their own guarantee warranty for the vehicles manufactured by them and the defendants also gave guarantee cards duly endorsed by them at the time of delivering the vehicles.
The defendants pleaded that they had never appointed the plaintiffs as their sole, permanent and irrevocable agents but their relationship was that of principal to principal.
Due to the shortage of automobiles at the relevant time the Central Government in exercise of its powers companyferred by Section 18 G of the Industries Development Regulation Act, 1091 had promulgated an Order called the Scooter Distribution Sale Control Order, 1000 and later on similar order was promulgated in respect of Vespa Commercials, The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants wanted to secure proper distribution and sale of their products mentioned above and, therefore, wanted to appoint Agents at different places including Ahmednagar.
The plaintiffs used to pay for the said automobiles and sell them independently.
The defendants, in their pleadings refuted the claim of the plaintiffs firm.
4419.81 which was admitted.
The plaintiffs alleged that they secured 2700 orders for Vespa Scooters and 501 orders for Vespa Commercials.
The defendants took the plea that the plaintiffs were appointed as ordinary distributors which companyld be terminated at any time.
But the plaintiffs were never required to procure any orders from the customers on behalf of the defendants and that the defendants had a right to terminate the companytract with a particular dealer at their sole discretion and their decision to that effect was final.
4419.81 which was admitted by the defendants, The High Court reappreciated the evidence on record and recorded the finding that there was numbermaterial to establish relationship of principal and agent between the parties and that the documents and the evidence on record indicated that the plaintiffs purchased from the respondents the vehicles allotted to them at the net dealers price, and retained the defference as their profit and that being so the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants in respect of sale by the plaintiffs was number the relationship of agent and principal.
The defendants denied the relationship of agent and principal as alleged by the plaintiffs.
The defendants are a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act as a Public Limited Company having its Registered Office at Pune, The defendants are the manufacturers of Scooters called Vespa Scooters and Vespa Auto rickshaws, hereinafter referred to as Vespa companymercials.
The defendants asserted that it was number a fact that plaintiffs were appointed distributors.
The demand for supply was greater than the capacity of the defendants to manufacture the vehicles and therefore, there was numberquestion of the defendants desiring to have a better distributing agency.
490/1974 affirming the judgment and decree dated 21,1,1974, passed by the Civil judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar dismissing the suit of the plaintiff appellant except for an amount of Rs.
The appellants hereinafter shall be referred as plaintiffs and the respondents as defendants.
The facts in brief leading to this appeal are that the plaintiffs are a trading firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, having its Office at Station Road, Ahmednagar.
Faizan Uddin, J. This appeal at the instance of the plaintiff has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 27,1,1992 passed by the High Court of Bombay in First Appeal No.
