Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary PendingJudgement Result:Appeal accepted.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Contract Act (IX of 1872): ----S. 202---Termination of agency where agent has an interest in the subject matter---Scope---Exclusive bottling appointment agreement between PepsiCo and Bolan Beverages was terminated by PepsiCo, leading Bolan Beverages to file a suit claiming that an interest in the franchise had been created under S. 202 of the Contract Act, rendering the agreement irrevocable---Held, the relationship between the parties was not that of principal and agent but of buyer and seller, as Bolan Beverages operated its business independently without representing PepsiCo in dealings with third parties---No interest was created in the subject matter of the agreement as required under S. 202 of the Contract Act---Provisions of S. 202 were, therefore, not attracted. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872): ----Ss. 182, 211, 213, 216, 217, & 218---Agency---Essential ingredients---Scope---Bolan Beverages failed to qualify as an agent under the Contract Act as it was not obligated to represent PepsiCo in dealings with third parties, render accounts, or share profits or losses with PepsiCo---All benefits and risks were borne solely by Bolan Beverages, indicating the absence of an agency relationship. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877): ----Ss. 21(a), 21(g) & 56(f)---Specific performance---Temporary injunction---Scope---Bolan Beverages sought a temporary injunction against the termination of its agreement with PepsiCo---Held, temporary injunctions are not granted where compensation in money constitutes an adequate remedy, as per S. 21(a) of the Specific Relief Act---The agreement involved a continuous duty extending beyond three years, which under S. 21(g) could not be specifically enforced---Issuance of a temporary injunction was not in the interest of justice, as it would effectively resurrect a terminated contract. (d) Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001): ----S. 46---Infringement of trademark---Allegations of marketing spurious products---Scope---PepsiCo alleged that Bolan Beverages had violated trademark rights by selling spurious products under the Pepsi trademark after ceasing to purchase Pepsi concentrate---Held, the sale of spurious products posed a serious risk to PepsiCo’s goodwill, further justifying the refusal of a temporary injunction. (e) Administration of justice---Ad interim injunction---Undue benefit from prolonged interim relief---Effect---Appellant continued to enjoy the benefits of the terminated agreement under the force of an ad interim injunction since 1999, causing significant prejudice to PepsiCo---Held, continuation of such an injunction was unjustified, and temporary relief was rightly refused. ---Disposition: Appeal dismissed. Temporary injunction refused. ---Cited Statutes: • Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 182, 202, 211, 213, 216, 217, & 218 • Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 21(a), 21(g), & 56(f) • Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001), S. 46 ---Judgment Reference: 2004 CLD 1530 (Supreme Court)

Summary: Summary pending.