JUDGMENT - VAZIFDAR S.J., J.:---The plaintiffs Notice of Motion No. 885 of 2001 seeks interim reliefs in aid of the final relief in the suit. The defendants Notice of Motion No. 526 of 2002 seeks the rejection of the plaint on the ground that it is barred by law and a dismissal of the suit on the ground of jurisdiction. This Notice of Motion also seeks to have an ad interim order passed in the plaintiffs Notice of Motion vacated.

2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated in Dubai under the law of the United Arab Emirates, carrying on business of manufacturing packing material for household goods and products. It owns and operates a factory in Dubai. Defendant No. 2 an Indian National, was one of the promoters of the plaintiff and occupied different positions in the plaintiff which I shall refer to. Defendant No. 2 is the State Bank of India.

3. The plaintiff has sought a permanent injunction against the 1st defendant restraining him from transferring, disposing of, alienating, encumbering, parting with possession of, removing from India or dealing with his assets including the amounts lying to the credit of the accounts held by him with the N.R.I. branch of the 2nd defendant under Customer Reference No. 025464 and of all other accounts of his with the 2nd defendant until the hearing and disposal of Suit No. HC 01 03831 filed in the English Court by the plaintiff and until the satisfaction in full of the decree, if any, that may be passed against the 1st defendant therein. The plaintiff has also sought an injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from permitting the 1st defendant to operate in any manner or closing the said account and any other account that may be held by the 1st defendant for the same duration.

In Notice of Motion No. 885 of 2001 the plaintiff has sought interim reliefs in terms of the above final reliefs and an order directing defendant No. 1 to disclose all his assets on affidavit whether located within or outside India, whether owned in his own name or not or whether held solely or jointly, giving full particulars of such assets including their value and location. The plaintiff has also sought an interim order directing the 2nd defendant to disclose with particulars, any accounts that may be held by the 1st defendant with the 2nd defendant including the said account and for inspection of the documents connected therewith.

4. The plaintiffs Notice of Motion No. 885 of 2001 involves a consideration of two aspects; whether the plaintiff is entitled on merits to protection qua the 1st defendants assets in India and whether the suit is maintainable?

I will first deal with the plaintiffs case on merits.

5. The plaintiffs case is that between 1997 and 1999 it purchased, rather was made to purchase, four items of machinery at a significant over valuation. Further, payments have been made by the plaintiff for certain goods which were not received by it. This, it is alleged was with a view to enable inter alia the first defendant to make secret profits fraudulently and in breach of his fiduciary duties to the plaintiff.

6. It is necessary to view the transactions in the background of the formation of the plaintiff, the role of its promoters, directors and officers and the facts pertaining to the connection between certain persons and legal entities through and with the aid of whom the plaintiff alleges the first defendant defrauded it.

7. On 14th November, 1992 a contract for establishment of a limited liability company was entered into between two U.A.E. nationals MHRAA Shami and S.H.A. Rahman, two members of the Khimji family-Ajay Mathradas Khimji and Pankaj Khimji. Defendant No. 1 and one Ottavio Parizzi. Parizzi is an Italian National. The initial Board of Managers constituted under this agreement consisted of all the aforesaid persons excluding defendant No. 1. Article 9(b) provided. "Mr. Pankaj Kanaski Khimji shall be the initial Chairman of the company of full authority to represent the company". Article 5 provided

Click Here to Read the rest of this document