1989 PLP 431 (CLC)

(c) to also declare that when the contract having been performed cancellation of loan and withdrawal of foreign exchange allocation on the said ground causes irreparable harm and injury to the plaintiff; (d) to grant consequent relief by directing I.D.B.P. through appropriate order/judgment/.decree that they do specifically perform the contract; (e) to grant a sum of Rs.5 crore for a year's delay which the project has suffered due to illegal act and action of the defendants and to make it recurring for each year of delay; (f)???????? In the alternative to grant a compensation of Rs.50 crore, being the estimated profit and appreciation envisaged in 10 years 'working of the textile mills; (g)??????? to grant costs to the plaintiff and also exemplary cost in the sum of Rs.10 lacs for the vexatious and frivolous act of the defendant; (h)??????? to grant such other/further/additional relief or reliefs, direction /directions, order/orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or appropriate in the circumstances mentioned hereinabove." We have heard the learned Advocate for the parties. Mr. Fazle Ghani Khan, Advocate for the appellants, has argued that the appellants in the matter were required to pay the commitment charges of Rs.2.24.330 as required in the letter of respondents bearing No.ROK%DOC/119. dated 21‑4‑1987 and that after having received the above payment, the respondents could not cancel their allocation. He has further argued that the said other companies had nothing to do with the appellants and that the appellants were not responsible for their dues. He had argued that in view of above facts, specially the letter of 21‑4‑1987 under which the required payment was made, the respondents had no authority to cancel their allocation and that the appellants have a very strong case for grant of injunction as prayed . Mr. A.I. Chundrigar, learned Counsel for the respondents, repelling the above contentions, has drawn our attention to the counter‑affidavit filed by respondents in the suit which clearly shows that the directors of the said two units namely, Shahyar Textile Mills Ltd. and Fazal Sugar Mills Ltd. are more or less same as that of the present appellants and even the address of the present appellants and the Fazal Sugar Mills Ltd. Is the same. This affidavit also shows the amount of dues against the three companies. He has argued that the three companies are actually owned by the same family and the same set of persons /directors are the sponsors thereof and therefore liable. Mr. A.I. Chundrigar has also drawn our attention to the following clauses of the letter of sanction:‑ "Clause 8(vi). The sponsors will clear over dues if any in respect of their units financed by IDBP;" "Clause 9(xiv). The sanction of loan is subject to availability of foreign exchange at the time of opening of L/C and approval of the foreign loan giving agency." Mr. Chundrigar has further argued that above clauses show the appellants are liable to clear the overdues of their units financed by the IDBP. From the above submissions of the learned counsel we are of the view that the point in controversy cannot be resolved unless the evidence is brought on record. We are tentatively of the view that the appellants have not been able to show the existence of the prima facie case in their favour. We are also of the view that the learned Single Judge has A rightly held that the appellants have not been able to show that they will suffer the irreparable loss in case the injunction as prayed is not granted and also that the balance of convenience is not in their favour. We are, therefore, of the view that the present appeal has no substance and the same is dismissed in limine. Above are the reasons for the short order passed by us on 13‑11‑1988. M. Z. S. /C‑69/K???????????????????? Appeal dismissed.