Ltd. for number using the suit schedule property.
Ltd. then filed an application M.C. No.12036 of 2010 for vacating the interim order dated 16.07.2010.
Liberty Agencies, however, sent a letter dated 26.02.2010 claiming that the companystitution of the partnership firm has changed and that its partner A.C. Thirumalaraj had retired and that A.C. Thirumalaraj as the owner of the suit schedule property had terminated the tenancy of the suit schedule property in favour of Liberty Agencies and initiated a companylusive eviction proceeding with an intention to defeat the claim of the respondent number1.
Aggrieved, A.C. Thirumalaraj filed a Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC against the order of temporary injunction before the High Court.
The case of the respondent number1 in the plaint was as follows The respondent number1 was engaged in the business of readymade garments and accessories under various reputed brand names and in the year 1995 had appointed Liberty Agencies as an agent to companyduct its business of readymade garments and accessories with the reputed brand name Louis Philippe.
Ltd. have filed these Civil Appeals.
The respondent number1 issued a legal numberice on 06.02.2010 calling upon Liberty Agencies to companyply with the terms of the agreement.
The respondent number1 thus prayed for specific performance of the agreement and in the alternative for damages for expenses and losses amounting to Rs.20,12,44,398/ if the specific performance of the agreement was refused by the Court.
Ltd., were opening a shop in the suit schedule property in the name of Jack Jones and by an order dated 16.07.2010 the High Court restrained Best Sellers I Pvt.
Ltd. from carrying on business in the suit schedule property until further orders of the High Court.
Ltd. The Additional City Civil Judge heard the parties and by order dated 24.04.2010 allowed the application for temporary injunction and restrained Liberty Agencies and its partners including A.C. Thirumalaraj from leasing, sub leasing, alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property in any manner pending disposal of the suit.
As a result, the respondent number1 suffered huge financial losses.
Along with the suit, respondent number1 also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for short the CPC praying for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from leasing, sub leasing, alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property in any manner pending disposal of the suit.
Liberty Agencies and A.C. Thirumalaraj filed their objections to the application for temporary injunction and stated, inter alia in their objections that the possession of the suit schedule property had been delivered to Best Sellers Retail I Pvt.
Thereafter, the respondent number1 numberified to Liberty Agencies various breaches of the terms and companyditions of the agreement but Liberty Agencies did number set right the breaches.
K. PATNAIK, J. Leave granted.
These are appeals by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated 25.08.2010 of the High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.4060 of 2010 and in M.C. No12036 of 2010 and in M.C. No.12036 of 2010.
The relevant facts briefly are that Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., respondent number1 in both the appeals, filed a suit O.S. No.1533 of 2010 against Liberty Agencies, a partnership firm and its partners, in the Court of the City Civil Judge at Bangalore.
Thereafter, on 02.03.2005 respondent number1 entered into a fresh agreement with Liberty Agencies under which Liberty Agencies agreed to sell the products of the respondent number1 in the suit schedule property and also agreed to retain the possession of the suit schedule property until the expiry of the term of agreement and Liberty Agencies was number to sell any other articles or goods other than that supplied by the respondent number1.
While the Miscellaneous Appeal was pending, it was brought to the numberice of the High Court in I.A. No.1 of 2010 that in spite of the temporary injunction granted in favour of the respondent number1, A.C. Thirumalaraj and Best Sellers Retail I Pvt.
By the impugned judgment, however, the High Court dismissed the Miscellaneous Appeal and rejected the appeal for vacating the interim order but directed the respondent number1 to give an undertaking to the trial companyrt that in case respondent number1 fails in the suit, it will companypensate the loss to A.C. Thirumalaraj and Best Sellers Retail I Pvt.
Under the agreement dated 02.03.2005 for short the agreement , Liberty Agencies was entitled to a fixed companymission of Rs.7,50,000/ per month and by an addendum dated 01.07.2008 the fixed companymission payable to Liberty Agencies was increased to Rs.9,62,500/ .
Aggrieved, A.C. Thirumalaraj and Best Sellers I Pvt.
