https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287860 The court dismissed the plaintiff's application seeking an injunction and allowed the respondent's application to vacate the injunction order. The court found that the balance of convenience favored the respondent due to the plaintiff's products still being available through another franchise agreement and the potential irreparable loss the respondent would suffer if restrained from manufacturing 'Thril'. The court determined that the contract was terminable and directed each party to bear their own costs. en-us Wed, 30 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 May 2020 10:07:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287860 The court dismissed the plaintiff's application seeking an injunction and allowed the respondent's application to vacate the injunction order. The court found that the balance of convenience favored the respondent due to the plaintiff's products still being available through another franchise agreement and the potential irreparable loss the respondent would suffer if restrained from manufacturing 'Thril'. The court determined that the contract was terminable and directed each party to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 30 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287860