Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 54

Law: Contract Act, 1872

Section: 28

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2,11,9,20

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)------S. 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for permanent injunction-Temporary injunction, refusal of---Claim as to exclusive right to run food business---Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss/injury---Plaintiff sought direction to defendant to restrain pending disposal of the suit from awarding licence to operate/develop licensed Restaurants for the Province of Sindh to any other person except the plaintiff and further direction to give necessary licence and/or approval to the plaintiff to develop defendant's restaurants under International Development Agreement (IDA) and to provide development schedule for the same accordingly---Plaintiff filed the present suit on basis of an Assignment Agreement, which it had executed with defendant's predecessor-in-­interest, (GFC), whereby, the said organisation with acceptance and endorsement by the defendant, had transferred all its rights and liabilities to the plaintiff pertaining to Multi-Unit License Agreement (MULA), on basis of which the plaintiff and the defendant had executed a New Development Rider (NDR) for initiation of Restaurants---Plaintiff contended that in terms of IDA, MULA and NDR and the Assignment Agreement, it had exclusive right to open, operate and develop defendant's Restaurants in the Province uncle- the provisions of IDA, which had an overriding effect on the other said correlated agreements--- Validity---Certain clause of the IDA, laid down right and/or opportunity to the developer to enter into MULA and NDR, so that the developer might develop and operate licensed restaurants at different sites in the developed territory---Said provision further provided that each licensed restaurant developed pursuant to IDA would be opened and operated only in full compliance with MULA and NDR---Clause of IDA, however, further provided that as long as the developer was in full compliance, the defendant, would not develop or operate any said Restaurant in the development territory during the development term---Another clause of IDA clearly mentioned that the licensee had been granted non-exclusive right to open each…