K. Ramamoorthy, J.
(1) Have heard the arguments of Mr. P.C. Khanna, Sr. Advocate for the defendants for a considerable length of time when he attempted to expound the law of Sale of Goods. The plaintiff had agreed to sell the machineries under certain circumstances to the defendants vide agreement dated 3.7.1996. The defendants came forward to purchase the machinery and is aware of the conditions referred to in the agreement. The total consideration mentioned in the agreement is Rs. 2,80,00,000.00 . Defendants were permitted to dismantle and lift the entire machineries. Apparently at the time of entering into the agreement, the defendants were not able to pay the full consideration and he would not be able to remove the entire machineries as per the agreement and, thereforee, it was agreed that as and when the defendants paid some amount proportionately the defendants were entitled to remove the machineries worth the amount paid by them. Clause 15 in this behalf is relevant and reads asunder:
15.That since the entire process of dismantling and lifting of he machinery shall take maximum six months, without prejudice to the payments to be made as per the schedule mentioned above the vendee assures the vendor that the machinery dismantled and lifted by the vendee shall also commensurate with the amount towards consideration paid by the vendee to the vendor as on date of such dismantling and lifting of the machinery.
(2) The defendants agreed to pay the consideration and remove the entire machinery within a period of four months from the date of signing of the present agreement in any event by December 31, 1996. Clause 5 provides for payment within a period of 4 months, that is on or before 3.11.1996.
(3) On 26.10.1996 the plaintiff wrote to the defendants in the following terms: Re. Arrangement dated July 3, 1996.
THIS refers to our arrangement entered into on July 3,1996 in tern's of which you agreed to purchase our entire Mill at Loni Road, Shahdara and pay the entire consideration within 4 (four) months from the date of the said arrangement.
THAT in terms of the arrangement as aforesaid a considerable part of the sale consideration remains to be paid by you and the time agreed to in terms of the arrangement is shortly expiring within a week from the date of this letter. You are, thereforee, requested to kindly arrange for the entire balance sale consideration latest by November 3, 1996 so as to comply with the arrangement and fulfill your commitments
WE trust that you shall keep to your commitments and abide by the trust reposed by us in you.
(4) On 4.11.1996 on behalf of the plaintiff another notice was sent terminating the contract and informing the defendants that they would have no right, title or interest in terms of the agreement. On 4.11.1996 the defendants issued notice through Counsel to the plaintiff stating that the defendants has paid total amount due to the plaintiff in cash as agreed it entire amount had been cleared by 2.11.1996 that is the period mentioned in the contract. The defendants also set up a case of oral agreement of sale of the Delhi Steel Rolling Mills to the defendants by the plaintiff. At the end of the notice it is stated thus :
I hereby call upon you through this legal notice to refrain yourself from entering the premises of Delhi Steel Rolling Mills under the actual physical possession of my client without the permission of the stall of my client and also not to indulge in such unlawful activities as mentioned above, failing which penal action shall be initiated against you at your risk and costs. That in case of any damage to machinery, land or building and goods lying in the premises named as Delhi Steel Rolling Mills caused by you or your persons, you will be liable for all the consequences and the same will be recovered at your risk and cost. A copy of this notice is kept in my office for future reference.
(5) The defendant was trying to remove the machineries without making the payment, thereforee, on 8.11.1996 the plaintiff instituted this suit and prayed for injunction in the following terms was granted by this Court :
ISSUE notice to the defendants returnable on 23.1.1997.1 have gone through the plaint and petition and I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a prima fade strong case for injunction. There shall be an injunction restraining defendants I and 2, their agents, servants, representatives and officers from making or attempting to make an illegal entry in the Mill of plaintiff, Delhi Steel Rolling Mill at Ramnagar. Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi and further the defendants 1 and 2 restrained from coming near the Mill of the plaintiff until further orders.
(6) The defendants had filed an is No. 11595/91 for vacating the order of injunction.
(7) Mr. P.C. Khanna, learned Senior Counsel for the defendants a submits that:
(I)The title in the entire machinery had passed to the defendants on the date of the agreement and, thereforee, the plaintiff is not entitled to any injunction.
(II)Section 20 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 provides that if there is an unconditional contract of sale some legal consequences follows and in that context the plaintiff would not be entitled to any injunction.
(III)Learned Senior Counsel referred to Section 55 and other provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and show that the remedy of the plaintiff is only to sue for damages or for the balance and the plaintiff cannot claim relief of injunction in this suit and the same relief in the interlocutory application.
(IV)On balance of equity the case of the defendants stands on a better footing and in case injunction is granted the effect would be that the suit would be decreed even at this stage and the defendants would have no remedy and the law does not contemplate such a situation and while balancing equities the entire facts have to be taken into account by this Court and from the point of view of the defendants if injunction is refused the plaintiff would not be put to any prejudice and, thereforee, the defendants are well within this right in praying for the vacation of injunction.
(8) Learned Senior Counsel referred to a few authorities on the premise that the provision of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 would apply to the facts of this case. Having regard to the specific terms of the agreement, I am not able to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the defendants. The fact that the defendants were not able to act in accordance with the terms of the agreement, cannot be disputed because no payment had been made within the time stipulated in the agreement. The conduct of the defendants could be well appreciated from the notice issued by the Counsel on 4.11.1996 wherein the second defendant set up the case of oral agreement of sale of immovable property. In the application to vacate injunction the defendants have come forward with the specific case which he had asserted in his notice that the entire amount of Rs. 2.80 crores had been paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. The defendants had also initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to the possession of the factory. After the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.P. Chengal Varaya Naida (Dead) by LRs. v. Jaganath (dead) by LRs & Ors. : AIR1994SC853 , the position is very clear and if a party comes with a false case he should not be shown any indulgence at all. The arguments advanced on behalf of the defendants is that the plaintiff has come forward with a false case in that the plaintiff has suppressed the payment of sum of Rs. 37 lakhs which had been paid by the defendants to the plaintiff, thereforee, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief from this Court. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff represents that a sum of Rs. 37 lakhs was received by the plaintiff and to that extent the defendants had removed the machinery from the factory and that is a question in dispute. For the purpose of interlocutory application having regard to the conduct of the defendants I have to assume that the defendants removed the machineries to the extent of Rs. 37 lakhs. It is strange that the party should state in the pleading that a sum of Rs. I crore was paid by him to the plaintiff without obtaining any receipt and it is argued that it was all done in good faith and that cannot be entertained at all.
(9) For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the defendants.
(10) The question is what is the relief and how the relief is to be granted either to the plaintiff or to the defendants. Mr. P.C. Khanna, learned Senior Counsel for the defendants argued that if injunction is granted, the defendants would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. But that is not correct because in terms of the agreement the second defendant had removed machineries for the money paid by him and when he had not acted in accordance with the terms of the agreement he will not be prejudiced and only thing is that if he had not paid any money cannot remove any machineries.
(11) The other argument advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the defendants that the relief prayed for in the suit as well as in the is are the same. Sometime it so happen and the Court has to deal with the situation as to how the relief is to be granted. The Courts have to consider the respective contentions of the parties and the strength of their case on a prima fade consideration of the materials placed before the Court. I am very clear in my mind that the second defendant does not deserve to any sympathy from this Court as he has corns forward with a false case. If he is not able to get the machineries from the plaintiff as per the terms of the contract, it is his own making and that there is no equity in his favour. Consequently, the injunction granted on 8.11.1996 is made absolute.
(12) It is made clear that it is open to the plaintiff to deal with the machineries in any manner it likes.
(13) Mr. P.C. Khanna learned Senior Counsel for the defendants orally represents that the order may be kept in abeyance for three days. I am not inclined to grant such request.
thereforee, 11434/96 filed by the plaintiff under order 39 Rules I and 2 is allowed.
IANo. 11595/96 filed by the defendants under Order 39, Rules 3(a) and 4, Cpc is dismissed.
POST the matter on 23.1.1997 for further proceedings, as already fixed.