Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) In a suit for declaration and injunction, the plaintiffs have sought interim order of injunction in respect of specified shares of certain legal entities on which the plaintiffs claim pledge.
(2.) Learned Senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, the plaintiff No. 1 is a mutual fund scheme established in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Fund) Regulations, 1996 and is a trust registered under the provisions of the Indian Trust Act, 1882. He has submitted that, the plaintiff No. 2 is an asset management company. He has drawn the attention of the court to the transactions that the plaintiffs had with the defendant Nos. 1 to 4. He has submitted that, that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 comprise the Williamson Magor Group. He has submitted that, the defendant Nos. 5 and 6 are the promoters and directors of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had obtain credit facilities from the plaintiffs and as security for the repayment of such credit facilities. The defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had inter alia agreed to pledge specified shares of specified legal entities in favour of the plaintiffs. He has referred to the various documents that the parties had executed. He has submitted that, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had enjoyed sums in excess of Rupees one hundred crores from the plaintiffs. The defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties. The defendants had failed to pledge the agreed shares in favour of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the plaintiffs have sought for a declaration that, the shares of the specified legal entities held by the defendant numbers 1 to 4 stand pledged in favour of the plaintiffs and for consequential reliefs with regard to those shares.
(3.) Learned Senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, in response to the notices for creation of security issued by the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have given evasive replies. He has submitted that, the shares in question are required to be protected. He has referred to the order refusing to pass an interim injunction as prayed for in the suit. He has submitted that, on appeal, the Appeal Court had granted an order of injunction on October 8, 2020. He has submitted that, such order of injunction should be continued till the disposal of the suit.;