C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J. - (1.) This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against an ex parte interim order dated 18.5.2017 in O.P. No.4 of 2017 on the file of the Vacation Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal, precisely stated, are as follows. Respondent No.1 is a limited liability partnership firm (LLP) incorporated under the provisions of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (for short, 'the Act'). Appellant No.1, which is represented by its Director, appellant No.2, is a 50% shareholder in the LLP, while respondent No.2 holds the balance 50% share therein. The LLP was formed on 16.12.2014 under a partnership deed and was accordingly incorporated under the Act. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed O.P. No.4 of 2017 in the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Arbitration Act').
(3.) The main allegation of respondent Nos.1 and 2 against the appellants is that the appellants in collusion with respondent Nos.3 and 4, the sons of appellant No.2, who formed respondent No.5 company, are indulging in the business similar to that of respondent No.1 in gross violation of the LLP and that thereby the appellants are causing huge loss to respondent Nos.1 and 2 not only in terms of monetary aspects but also in terms of reputation loss as well. It was further alleged that appellant No.2 is not allowing the designated employees of respondent No.1 to the office space so as to work on the prospects of respondent No.1 and is interfering with their works. It was further averred that respondent No.2 being the 50% partner of respondent No.1 is entitled to have access to APN Portal apart from having access to credentials, servers, portals, websites, emails etc., and that the same is being deliberately denied by appellant Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with respondent Nos.3 and 4. It was also alleged that the appellants in order to camouflage their illegal activities are deliberately not providing access to respondent No.2 and/or sharing the details of respondent No.1 with respondent No.2. That if respondent Nos.1 and 2 continue to have access to the resorts, hotels, accounts, etc., the illegal activities of the appellants would have been got exposed. By claiming that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to initiate legal action against the appellants by way of arbitration proceedings, they have averred that pending initiation of such proceedings there is every possibility that the appellants, in order to cover up their illegal acts and also render the arbitration proceedings a fait accompli, may resort to manipulation of records by denying access to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to credentials, servers, websites, AWS Accounts, APN Portals, Zoh Books etc. On the aforementioned averments, respondent Nos.1 and 2 claimed the following reliefs: "...to grant an interim injunction pending the present O.P. as follows: a. Directing the Respondents from not disabling the Google email server access to the petitioner No.2 and thereby enabling the petitioner No.2 from having full access to the administrative rights [Techminfy domain (www.techminfy.com), Amazon Partner Network (APN), Portal Alliance Lead] to the petitioner No.1. b. Directing the respondent Nos.2 to 5 from not doing similar business as to that of M/s. TechMinfy Info Solutions LLP, i.e., petitioner No.1, by using its credentials. c. Directing the respondents from diverting the clients of M/s. Techminfy Info Solutions LLP to respondent No.5 as well as any other company in which the Respondents have similar interests directly or indirectly. d. Restraining the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 from denying access to designated employees of the petitioner to the office space of M/s. Techminfy Info Solutions LLP; e. Direct Respondent No.5 to render accounts; f. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity; g. To award costs in the O.P." ;