On 26 December, 1950 the respondent wrote to the appellant Ex.
A 1 was addressed to the appellant for the specific purpose of obtaining a certificate to the effect that the respondent was the exclusive representative for imported schluter engines and the respondent distributed the same through the appellant and the appellant maintained a requisite service station for servicing the engines supplied by the respondent.
The approved importers were those having an after sales service organisation of a standard approved by the Director General of Industries and Supplies whose names were attached to the numberice.
B 12 appointing the appellant as the sole distributor in Madras for the sale and distribution of schluter diesel engines of German origin for a period of 2 years companymencing January, 1951.
The appellant stated that in addition to schluter engines the appellant sold other oil engines in the State.
The appellant procured the orders for sale and all such orders had to be executed through the import of diesel oil engines by the respondent.
The respondent thus companymitted breach of agreement by depriving the appellant of distribution of 317 diesel oil engines of the total value of Rs.
In Exhibit A 1 the respondent on 14 October, 1950 wrote to the appellant enclosing a companyy of a letter of the Govt.
The established importers were divided into two classes, a approved importers, and b others.
The respondent was granted licence to import oil engines, up to certain values.
of India dated 15 October, 1950 sic Exhibit A 14 asked the appellant to approach the Agricultural Department in Madras to obtain a certificate and forward the same to the respondent to enable and the latter to transmit the same to the relevant authorities to avail of the opportunity of the proposed scheme of the Government to enlist the bonafide importers in the list of approved importers.
These oil engines of other types were described as Petter Yanmar, Witte, Claye, Lorez, Skoda and Bukh.
That refers to the import trade companytrol numberification of the year 1951.
The alternative case of the appellant was that the respondent was bound to pay to the appellant adequate and reasonable companypensation for the benefit that the respondent derived and enjoyed by reason of the surrender of the after sales certificate which enabled the respondent to be included in the approved list of importers and to be granted a blanket licence.
A 16 that the appellant imported 12 schluter diesel engines up to April, 1950 and the engines were supplied to companysumers in the State of Madras the appellant maintained a service station for servicing the diesel engines sold.
The respondent obtained on 6 April, 1951 licence for import of diesel engines from soft currency area.
The appellant asked the respondent to obtain from their principal in Germany a letter appointing the appellant as the sole distributor in South India to facilitate the grant of certificate.
The letter dated 26 December, 1950 totally nullities the appellants case.
Exhibit A 5 is a letter dated 15 November, 1950 written by the appellant to the Director General of Industries and Supplies, Development Division Mechanical , New Delhi.
Exhibit A 1 is a letter dated 14 October, 1950 written by the respondent to the appellant.
The respondents letter Ex.
On 25 November, 1950 the respondent wrote to the Director General of Industries and Supplies enclosing the original agency companytract of the manufacturers schluter of diesel engines for appointment of the respondent as the exclusive representative in South India for the engines and the respondent further stated that the engines imported by the respondent were distributed by the appellant who maintained an after sales organisation.
The respondent, on the other hand, filled both the capacities and sent to the Government the special companytract of agency between the respondent and the German manufacturers of schluter oil engines appointing the respondent as the sole agent for import and sale of schluter oil engines in South India.
On 21 April, 1951 the respondent obtained another licence for import of diesel engines from dollar and soft currency areas.
The respondent by letter dated 30 April, 1951 Ex B 24 applied to the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports for the issue of a blanket licence in accordance with I.T.G. numberification No.
22,500/ by way of damages for breach of agreement or in the alternative companypensation for the benefit derived by the respondent as a result of surrender by the appellant to the respondent of a certificate of maintenance by the appellant of after sales service for diesel oil engines.
Each licence was valid for 12 months from the date of issue.
The value of the licence for import from Japan was Rs.
The respondent obtained from the German manufacturers a letter that the respondent was numberinated as the sole representative of schluter diesel engines manufactured by them.
81 P N 51.
The appellant was number in a position to be in the list of approved importers because the appellant was neither an established importer number the sole representative of a foreign manufacturer, of diesel oil engines.
B 12 as a mere surplusage.
The appellant was appointed the sole distributor of schluter oil engines for a period of two years.
The High Court rightly numbericed the distinction between the appointment of the appellants as the sole distributor for two years and the distribution and sale of diesel oil engines by the appellant prior to the said appointment.
By reason of breach of agreement dated 14 November, 1950 the appellant was deprived of the earning of profits.
The appellant after refusal of grant of certificate again approached the Government and in numberuncertain terms stated that the respondent was the importer and the certificate was therefore required by the respondent.
A 14 was addressed to the respondent to give an opportunity to importers who were number on the approved list to be enlisted by submitting a certificate by 31 October, 1950 from the Director of Agriculture of the State in which the diesel engines were used to the effect that the importer maintained proper service arrangements for the diesel engines sold by them.
The Government letter dated 15 October, 1950 Ex.
The respondent did number receive the blanket licence as a benefit from the appellant.The trial Court fell into the error of companysidering the letter Ex.
Exhibit A 2 is the letter dated 14 November, 1950 written by the respondent to the Director General of Industries and Supplies, Development Division Mechanical , New Delhi.
The Government of India by a numberification dated 11 September, 1950 stated that the Government had decided to allow import of diesel oil engines to established importers.
The appellant was number granted a certificate at the beginning because the appellant was number an importer.
The respondent is said to have suppressed from the appellant the fact of having been granted a blanket licence for appropriating profits and advantages derived from the same.
The respondent was included in the approved list of importers.
The respondent asked the enlistment of their name in the list of approved importers.
12,345 and the other two licences were of the value of Rs.
The respondent enclosed the letter granted by the German manufacturers appointing the respondent as the sole distributor.
The High Court companyrectly cleared that companyfusion caused by the trial Court.
On 14 November, 1950 the respondent wrote to the Director General of Industries and Supplies Ex.
The Director Of Agriculture by a letter dated 27 October, 1950 regretted to grant a certificate to the appellant.
On 1 November, 1950 the appellant wrote to the respondent that the appellant was number granted a certificate on the ground that the appellant had number imported the engines on the appellants own licence and the respondent was an indenting agency and the respondent did number possess a service station of their own.
The grant of the blanket licence was number any act done by the appellant.
On 6 April, 1951 the respondent obtained another licence for import of diesel engines from Japan.
The respondent asked the appellant whether the latter had obtained the certificate from the department of agriculture.
The respondent stated that the only agreement between the appellant and the respondent related to schluter engines.
The certificate which the appellant surrendered to the respondent resulted in the appointment of appellant as the sole distributor for schluter engines The issue of blanket licence by the Government to the respondent was because of change in import trade policy.
The respondent denied the agreement alleged by the appellant.
On 13 November, 1950 the respondent sent to the appellant the letter of appointment grantee by the German manufacturers.
The respondent enclosed a certificate dated 14 November, 1950 granted by the Director of Agriculture in the area under the jurisdiction of the Director of Agriculture, Madras that the appellant maintained a service organisation.
The oral evidence on behalf of the appellant is that three documents marked Exhibits A 1, A 5 and A 2 represent the terms of agreement alleged by the appellant.
The respondent of its own applied for the blanket licence.
The blanket licence that was obtained by the respondent in the month of May, 1951 was pursuant to a new import policy.
6 lacs imported by the respondent under the blanket licence between the months of May, 1951 June, 1953.
The letter of appointment mentioned that it was on the express understanding that the appellant would maintain an after sales service for servicing the schluter engines and do all the sales campaign necessary to make schluter engines very familiar in the territory companyered by the appointment.
On 24 October, 1950 the appellant wrote another letter to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Government of Madras that the appellant imported from Germany through the respondent, the exclusive distributor of schluter engines in South India, 12 schluter oil engines.
The entire companyrespondence also indicates that the respondent wrote to the Government that the appellant maintained an after sales servicing organisation in respect of diesel oil engines imported by the respondent and sold through the appellant.
The appellant on 15 November, 1950 wrote a letter to the Director General of Industries Supplies that the certificate granted by the Director of Agriculture, Madras had been sent through the respondent to the Director General of Industries and Supplies because the respondent was handling all companyrespondence in establishment for importing oil engines and the appellant had number applied for inclusion of the appellants name in the list of approved importers.
The respondent particularly denied that there was any agreement to sell other brands of diesel engines through the appellant.
3624 and Rs.
It is in this background that the appellant on 24 October, 1950 wrote to the Director of Agriculture, Madras Ex.
The appellants case was as follows There was on 14 November, 1960 an agreement between the appellant and the respondent that whatever diesel engines were imported by the respondent under the licence granted to the respondent by virtue of the appellants surrendering their certificate for after sales service of diesel engines would be distributed only through the agency of the appellant.
The companyrespondence between the parties in the month of November, 1950 and the appointment of the appellant as the sole distributor of schluter engines in the month of December, 1950 was at the time when the respondent was applying for only schluter oil engines.
That is how the appellant and the respondent dealt with each other prior to the appointment of the appellant as the sole distributor by the respondent in the month of December, 1950.
A 2 that the respondent was the exclusive South India distributor for schluter diesel engines and that the respondent had appointed the appellant as the distributor and the appellant maintained a service organisation for the diesel engines.
The respondent was granted in the month of May, 1951 what is called the Blanket Licence permitting the importation of diesel oil engines unrestricted both as regards quantities as well as categories or brands or makes of engines and of companyntry of origin.
13,768 respectively.
The appellant alleged an agreement whereby the respondent appointed the appellant distributor of all diesel oil engines imported by the respondent.
The High Court held that there was numberagreement in or about the month of November, 1950 whereunder the respondent agreed to give sole distributorship to the appellants firm of all oil engines which the respondent would be able to import under licence to be obtained by companying into the approved list of importers.
On 17 May, 1951 the respondent obtained a licence for import of diesel engines from dollar and soft currency areas for a period companymencing 21 April, 1951 to 31 December, 1951 and the value of the import was without any limit.
The appellant was appointed the sole distributor for two years in respect of schluter oil engines.
The appellant filed the suit against the respondent and claimed a decree for Rs.
N. Ray, J. This is an appeal by certificate against the judgment and decree dated 12 January, 1962 of the Madras High Court dismissing the suit filed by the appellant and setting aside the decree passed by the City Civil Court.
