Civil Appeal No. 7174 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9914 of 2012), Civil Appeal No. 7175 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10363/2012), Civil Appeal Nos. 7195-7201 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18158-18164/2012) and Civil Appeal No. 7177 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18420/2012). Case: Babu Lal Vs M/s. Vijay Solvex Ltd.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 7174 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9914 of 2012), Civil Appeal No. 7175 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10363/2012), Civil Appeal Nos. 7195-7201 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18158-18164/2012) and Civil Appeal No. 7177 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18420/2012) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: H.P. Raval, Dushyant Dave, Sr. Advs., Shiv Mangal Sharma, Ramesh Singh, Akshat Anand, Abhinandini Sharma, Sitesh Narayan Singh and Sharmila Upadhyay, Advs. and For Respondents: Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Amrinder Sharan, Gopal Jain, Indu Malhotra, Sr. Advs., Rakesh Dwivedi, Narendera M. Sharma, Abhishek Sharma, J.K. Chaudhary, ... |
| Judges | Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Sharad Arvind Bobde, JJ. |
| Issue | Companies Act; Partnership Act; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2 |
| Citation | 2014 (9) SCALE 222 |
| Judgement Date | August 04, 2014 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.
-
Leave granted.
-
In these appeals the Appellants have challenged the common judgment and order dated 14th March, 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2218 of 2011 etc. By the impugned judgment, the High Court modified the interim order dated 10th February, 2011 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 3 Jaipur Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as, "the Lower Court") in Civil Misc. Case No. 36/2010, whereby the Lower Court partly allowed the application of the Appellants-original Plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1, 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court set aside the temporary injunction granted in favour of Plaintiffs/Appellants by the Lower Court and confirmed that part of the order requiring production of audited/unaudited accounts of the companies/partnership firms run by the parties.
-
The present appeals arise from the following sequence of facts.
Plaintiffs/Appellants-Babulal and Ors. filed a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction against the Defendants/non-applicants. The Lower Court noticed that the properties which the Plaintiffs presented in the Schedules "Ka" to "Cha" are basically immovable properties, companies and partnership firms regarding which both the parties have claimed ownership. Taking into consideration that the dispute between the parties has arisen after the year 2007 and the cases are pending before the Company Law Board and if a restraint is not imposed upon the transfer of the aforesaid properties it will lead to multiplicity of litigation and the parties will entangle in litigation, the Lower Court observed that Plaintiffs/Appellants have made out partially a prima facie case and held that the issue of balance of convenience and irreparable loss are in favour of the Plaintiffs/Appellants. Resultantly, the application of the Plaintiffs-Appellants for temporary injunction against the non-applicants and the counter temporary injunction application filed on behalf of the non-applicants were partly allowed and it was ordered that till the decision of the original suit:
-
The applicants and non-applicants No. 1 to 31 and the non-applicants No. 36 to 43 shall not sell/transfer the immovable properties as mentioned in Schedule "Ka" to "Cha" and nor shall they create any substantial charge on...
To continue reading
Request your trial