- (1.) THIS appeal is against the order dated 19.4.2008 passed in Title Suit no.2 of 2005, whereby the appellant's petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. According to the appellant, learned court below has decided the appellant's petition for temporary injunction against the settled principle of law and has erroneously held that there was no prima facie case and balance of convenience was not in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.
(2.) IT has been submitted that there was sufficient material on record to show that the plaintiff-appellant is not a defaulter. The last installment of sanction of loan was released on 31.1.2002 and immediately thereafter, the factory started production in April,2002. It also repaid Rs.24.5 lakhs to the respondents. Learned court below has not taken into consideration that the respondent no.1 is the State instrumentality and it has to promote industrialization and not to obstruct the industries. Learned court below failed to to take into consideration that inspite of release of last installment after inordinate delay, the respondents did not reschedule the repayment. The said facts on record apparently demonstrate the prima facie case in favour of the appellant. The fact further goes to show that the balance of convenience is in favour of protecting the industry and that the action of the respondents admittedly caused irreparable loss and injury. Learned court below has erroneously rejected the appellant's petition. The impugned order is, thus, liable to be set aside and the appellant's prayer for temporary injunction is fit to be allowed by this Court. The defendants-respondents have appeared and contested the appeal. It has been stated, inter alia, that the plaintiff-appellant had applied and granted loan of Rs.90 lakhs. Out of the said amount, Rs.16.28 lakhs was to be released on furnishing of working capital sanction from any commercial Bank. Except the said amount of working capital, other amounts were released. There was delay in submission of working capital sanction letter by the plaintiff-appellant. Fault was not on the part of the respondents. As soon as the letter was submitted, that amount was released on 31.01.2002. However, the plaintiff did not repay the amount as per the schedule and instead thereof writ application was filed by the plaintiff-appellant, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff had given post- dated cheques. Those cheques were dishonored. Notice under section 138 of N.I.Act issued to the plaintiff, but they did not pay the amount, and instead, filed the instant frivolous suit. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed application praying for interim injunction only in order to avoid repayment. Learned court below has considered all the said aspects and after due discussion of the facts and materials on record in detail has come to the finding that there was no fault on the part of the defendant-respondents and there was no legal ground for challenging the same. Learned court below further took notice of the fact that the cheques given by the plaintiff were dishonored and observed that there was no genuine intention of the plaintiff to repay the loan. On that basis, learned court below has found that there was no prima facie case for grant of interim injunction, as prayed for by the plaintiff. The balance of convenience was also not in favour of the plaintiff and there was no irreparable loss and injury. Learned court below found that the plaintiff has, rather, caused loss and injury to the defendant.
(3.) LEARNED counsel submitted that the order of learned court below is thoroughly discussed and well considered and requires no interference by this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. It is not disputed by the plaintiff that the loan of Rs.90 lakhs was granted to it. It is also not in dispute that the payment was not made as per the schedule agreed upon between the parties. Learned court below has found that there was no genuine intention of the plaintiff to repay the loan. The post dated cheques issued by the plaintiff, towards repayment, were dishonored. Learned court below after considering the above and also considering the other facts and the provisions of law has rejected the appellant's prayer for grant of interim injunction. On going through the facts and materials on record, I find that the appellant has failed to prove that there is prima facie case for grant of injunction or balance of convenience is in its favour. The defendants-respondents being a financial institution have to take action under the provisions of law for realization of the loan amount. Any legal action taken for such purpose cannot be said to cause any loss or injury to the appellant. I, therefore, find no ground made out in this appeal warranting inference with the order of learned court below. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.;