JUDGMENT :

1. The present order shall dispose of Interim Application (L) No. 21398 of 2021 along with Interim Application (L) No. 13622 of 2022 filed by the Plaintiffs. Parties shall be referred to as ‘Plaintiffs’ and ‘Defendants’ for the sake of convenience.

2. On 26.10.2021, this Court passed the following ad-interim order in Interim Application (L) No. 21398 of 2021:-

“1. Heard. The Defendants are absent though served. The IA seeks an injunction against the 1st Defendant from selling, alienating, transferring or disposing of shares pledged with the 1st Defendant in a demat form.

2. The Plaintiff is admittedly not a borrower from the 1st Defendant. It was asked to provide security by way of a pledge for certain amounts that Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 took from the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff provided these pledges and I am not concerned with a question of whether or not the Plaintiffs are otherwise connected with Defendants Nos. 2 and 3.

3. The documents annexed to the Plaint from Exhibit “H1” onwards indicate that each of the pledges has what is described as a closure date. These dates are 31st March 2011, 31st March 2012 and 31st March 2013.

4. While it is admittedly curious that even after this passage of time the Plaintiff has not sought a return of its securities, there is an equally inevitable consequence in law. The pledge cannot subsist, prima facie, beyond a stated agreed and contractually mandated closure date. If there is any other way of looking at it, that will depend on what the Defendants have to say in the Affidavit in Reply. But at least for the purposes of an ad-interim injunction, this must be enough. I do not see how in 2021 there can be an invocation of pledges that had these historical closure dates.

5. It seems that after the Suit was instituted, some shares worth lakhs have been sold. There is not much that can be done about that at this ad-interim stage. These contentions may be left open to the next date after an Affidavit in Reply is filed.

6. There will be an ad-interim injunction in terms of prayer clause

(a) which will continue until 13th December 2021. Affidavits in Reply are to be filed and served on or before 22nd November 2021. An Affidavit in Rejoinder is to be filed and served on or before 3rd December 2021.

7. The matter is to be listed thereafter depending on the roster.

8. Previous orders, if any, to continue until next date.

9. All concerned will act on production of a digitally signed copy of this order.”

2.1. Thus on and from 26.10.2021, there was an embargo on Defendant No. 1 from selling/transferring of the shares pledged with Defendant No. 1 in demat form. On these Applications having been heard finally on 18.05.2022, Defendant No. 1’s statement was recorded on that date that until the decision in the present Interim Applications, Defendant No. 1 would not sell the pledged shares.

3. To adjudicate the controversy and lis between the parties and before I advert to the submissions made by the learned Advocates, such of the relevant facts necessary for adjudication based on pleadings at this stage are outlined hereinunder:-

3.1. Commercial Suit No. 156 of 2022 is filed by Plaintiffs (Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2) against the Defendants, seeking relief against Defendant No. 1 only. Dispute between relate parties to pledge of shares. Plaintiffs are alleged pledgors and Defendant No. 1 is the pledgee. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the borrowers of Defendant No. 1. Suit is filed on 08.09.2021 on receiving notice dated 16.06.2021 issued by Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiffs intimating that they had pledged certain shares in favour of Defendant No. 1 to secure facilities granted to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, and since Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 failed to honour their commitments, their accounts became NPA. Hence, Defendant No.1 intended to sell the pledged shares to recover its dues. Plaintiffs replied to the notice vide letter dated 12.07.2021 followed by reminder dated 03.08.2021, inter alia, informing Defendant No. 1 t