FACTS
1. Plaintiff instituted suit for specific performance of an Agreement.
2. Agreement was for sale and delivery ex-pit mouth of entire Manganese ore and Iron ore from mine at Ingani Jharan Village in district of Keonjhar.
3. Manganese and Iron Ores agreed to be sold to Plaintiff were those which were excavated and raised for delivery ex pit mouth. Only such manganese and Iron Ores were to be sold and delivered to Plaintiff as had been excavated and raised and no sooner same was done, they became both ascertained and specific goods
4. Defendant has agreed not to sell or otherwise part with or dispose of any Manganese or Iron Ore from mines and has further agreed that Plaintiff shall be sole and only buyer thereof during continuance of agreement.
5. Agreement sought to be enforced was such as would amount to restraint of trade.
ISSUES
1. The agreement sought to be enforced was such as would amount to restraint of trade then what would be better remedy?
2. The contract also involves the performance of continuous duty
JUDGMENT
1. Court held that in such a case, damage would be a better remedy than granting an order of injunction. In case of money lent and advanced, Court always protects the interest of the borrower, particularly if conditions of the agreement recording advance are onerous. Court presumes that lender was in a position to dominate will of borrower, in view of borrower's stringent financial condition.
2. The Court further held that even if the plaintiff in such a case is entitled to a decree for specific performance, being a case covered by Section 58 of the Sale of Goods Act, breach of an implied negative covenant can also be restrained by an order of injunction.
3. The Court held that in such a case, damage would be a better remedy than granting an order of injunction.
Comments