2. The plaintiff was appointed by the defendant as the sole agent for the sale of books within the State of Andhra Pradesh by virtue of written agreement dated 14.3.1992. The same is filed along with the plaint.
3. The terms of the agreement dated 14.3.1992 between the plaintiff and the defendant, state that the plaintiff should get commission at the rate of 25% from the defendant on all books sold in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
4. The term of agency continued till 14.3.1994. After that without giving any reasons his agency was terminated.
5. As the defendant in terms of the agreement and on requisition by the plaintiffs sub-agents sent the books to the sub-agents directly, the plaintiff is not in a position to know the full and correct account of the sale of the books during the period agency and all such accounts are in the possession of the defendant.
6. The plaintiff verbally and in writing demanded of the defendant for inspection of the accounts which are in the possession of the defendant. But, the defendant refused to show them, and when the plaintiff asked for the commission he refused to pay it.
7. Thus, the plaintiff is not in a position to state the exact amount due to him, as commission, from the plaintiff.
8. The cause of action for this suit arose on 14.3.1994, the date of sudden termination of agency by the plaintiff and on 2.12.1994, the date on which the plaintiff refused to show the records to the defendant.
9. As the business of the agency was to be carried on within the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of the agreement and as the demand for inspection of accounts as well as for payment of commission was made within the jurisdiction of this court and refused by the defendant, this court has jurisdiction to try this suit.
10. The valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court fees as well as for jurisdiction is tentatively fixed at Rs. 40,000/-.
11. The plaintiff undertakes to pay additional Court fees for the excess amount found due in favour, of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff therefore prays, the amount due from the defendant as commission for the selling of the books, for the loss he incurred due to the sudden termination of the agency and the the costs of this suit.
1. Allegations made in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the plaint are all correct and are admitted as true.
2. The plaintiff violated the terms of the agreement. According to the terms of the agreement, he was forbidden from entering into similar such agreements with any other publisher, but the defendant having learnt that the plaintiff had also entered into similar agreements with one more publisher and had been working detrimental to the agency agreement entered between the plaintiff and the defendant was obliged to terminate the agency business.
3. It is not true that the plaintiff was denied the right of inspecting the accounts. He was well aware of the accounts.
4. The plaintiff was paid his commission regularly.