U.C.Banerjee, J. - (1.) The law in regard to the grant of interlocutory injunction is now well-settled. Lord Diplock's speech in American Cinamid's case (1975: 1 All ER 504) and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank vs. Bank of India (AIR 1981 SC 1426) as also of this Court in Damodar Valley Corporation's case (AIR 1978 Cal 489) go in the same vein and establish that only a prima facie case is needed at this juncture without even considering the chance of success at the time of the anal disposal of the suit: - A reasonable or even a plausable case would be sufficient at this interlocutory stage., The decision of this Court in the Calcutta Tramways Company's case (AIR 1986 Calcutta 305) also lend support to the view expressed above. Similar is the position in law as regards the grant of quia timet injunction since the apprehended damage ought not to be allowed to continue and the Law Courts ought to intervene and interfere in a given case to prevent such an apprehension. There is no statutory force in such an order of injunction, but the Courts in this country as well as in England have been following the English Common Law Rule that a threatened action, if designed to affect the plaintiff his right claim in the suit, Civil Courts ought not to hesitate in the matter of grant of an order of injunction so as to maintain status qua on the basis that a substantial question is to be investigated though ultimately plaintiff may fail in its effort to bring home the charges leveled against the defendant.
(2.) The plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 and the defendant no. 5 are the sons of one Balailal Mukherjee since deceased. It appears from records that on and from 1868 one Prasanna Kumar Mukherjee carried on business under the name and style of Ram Nath Mukherjee & Co., as the sole proprietor and was engaged inter alia in the business of Stevedoring. After the death of Prosanna Kumar Mukherjee his son Balailal Mukherjee carried on the business as the sole proprietor thereof under the name and style of 'Balailal Mukherjee & Co.' The sole proprietorship business however continued upto the year 1950., By a deed of partnership dated April 18, 1950 made by and between the plaintiff no. 2, Balailal Mukherjee and the defendant no. 5 the business of the sole proprietorship firm was taken over by a partnership firm under the name and style of 'Balailal Mukherjee & Co.' The newly constituted firm also carried on with the business of Stevadores, Ship Chandlars, Marine and Transport- Contractors with Balailal Mukherjee having 50% share and defendant no. 5 and plaintiff no. 2 having 25% share each. Subsequently, however, the arm was reconstituted and the plaintiff no. 3 was admitted into the partnership with 25% share out of 50% Standing in the name of Balailal Mukherjee.
(3.) On January 6, 1960 Balailal Mukherjee & Co. Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 to take over the business of the partnership firm 'Balailal Mukherjee & Co.' as a going concern and all the partners of the firm were subscribers to the Memorandum of the plaintiff no. 1 with the share-holding of the company being equally divided between the erstwhile partners of the firm. It appears from the records that after the death of Balailal Mukherjee, the share-holding pattern however changed and the plaintiff nos. 2, 3 and the defendant no. 5 were having 31.667% share for each and Smt. Surabala Mukherjee, wife of Balailal Mukherjee, deceased having 5% share as nominee of her sons being plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 and the defendant no. 5. It is the plaintiff's definite case however that the plaintiff no. 1 continued to be a partnership firm in the guise of a Limited Liability Company.;