BABU LAL Vs. M/S. VIJAY SOLVEX LTD
LAWS(SC)-2014-8-14
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on August 04,2014

BABU LAL Appellant
VERSUS
M/s. Vijay Solvex Ltd. Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

RAJENDRASINH HARBHAMJI JADEJAS HEIRS VS. MANSUKHLAL PREMCHAND MEHTAS HEIRS [LAWS(GJH)-2014-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. PANIPAT JALANDHAR NH-I TOLLWAY PVT. LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2021-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
MUSHARRAT ALI VS. PAWAN KUMAR [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-250] [REFERRED TO]
T. A. SASIKALA VS. CHIEF MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, CORPORATE OFFICE, CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2022-1-326] [REFERRED TO]
NAVAL TECHNOPLAST INDUSTRIES LTD VS. PAVANKISHORE KAILASHCHANDRA TIBREWALA [LAWS(GJH)-2018-7-107] [REFERRED TO]
THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY AND ORS. VS. Y.V. SHARMA AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2020-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESHBHAI N SHAH VS. SHARDA FUELS (INDIA) LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2018-8-219] [REFERRED TO]
MIR ARIF VS. MUGHLI BEGUM [LAWS(J&K)-2022-4-51] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER KUMAR VS. MANAV CHOUHAN [LAWS(J&K)-2022-4-57] [REFERRED TO]
JKM-ARSS VS. MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2017-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
AASCAR ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED VS. A.CHANDRASEKARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2018-10-590] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)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 CPC. 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.
(3.)The present appeals arise from the following sequence of facts.
Plaintiffs/appellants-Babulal and others 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:-

1. 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 the said properties.

2. The Companies/Partnership firms controlled and run by the parties of which the details have been given in Schedule "Ka" to "Cha" regarding them the audited accounts of income and expenditure half yearly/annually whichever is got done in the normal sequence shall be presented before this Court. Apart from this the other prayers which have been made by both the parties are rejected.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.