Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. KULKARNI, SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.
Equus Stud Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Dharmil A. Bodani and Others – Respondents
Interim Application (L) No. 16819 of 2023, Interim Application No. 2261 of 2020, Appeal (L) Nos. 16253, 17418 of 2023
Decided On : 11-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Rahul Narichania, Siddanth Chabbria, Uma Kshirsagar Wagle, Simran Wagle, Ashish Kamat.
For the Respondents: Venkatesh Dhond, Kunal Mehta, Jigisha Vadodaria, Negandhi Shah, Himayatullah.
The court cannot issue injunctions against non-parties regarding property not involved in the original suit, necessitating independent proceedings for access rights.
Headnote:(A) Jurisdiction - High Court's Original Side - The court lacks jurisdiction to issue injunctions against parties not involved in the suit. (Paras 24, 30, 32)
(B) Injunction - Legal Rights - An injunction cannot be granted against a third party regarding property not subject to the suit. (Paras 28, 34)
(C) Access Rights - Plaintiffs cannot assert rights of access over a third party's property without independent proceedings. (Paras 26, 34)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, not a party to the original suit between shareholders, contested an injunction order allowing plaintiffs access to a road on the appellant's property, which was not part of the suit. The plaintiffs claimed access rights based on their property being under the Court Receiver's management.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the injunction against the appellant was without jurisdiction, as the appellant was not a party to the suit and the property in question was not part of the original proceedings.
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the court had jurisdiction to issue an injunction against a non-party and whether the plaintiffs could assert access rights over the appellant's property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the injunction was not sustainable as the appellant was not a party to the suit, and the plaintiffs needed to pursue independent proceedings to assert any rights over the appellant's property.
Result: The directions in the impugned order were stayed, and the plaintiffs were permitted to institute appropriate proceedings against the appellant.
JUDGMENT :
G.S. KULKARNI, J.
1. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties on this Interim Application [I.A. (L) No. 16819 of 2023] which has prayed for stay of an order dated 5 June 2023 (impugned order) passed by the learned Single Judge on Interim Application No. 2261 of 2020 in Suit No. 924 of 2001, filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (referred as “plaintiffs”) as assailed in the appeal in question.
2. The appellant “who is not a party to the suit” has prayed for stay of the impugned order primarily on two grounds, firstly that this Court trying the Civil Suit in question instituted on the Original Side of this Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to pass an order injuncting the appellant, so as to permit the plaintiffs to use the appellant’s land situated at Village Shirgaon, Taluka Maval, District Pune, for an access to the plaintiffs’ adjoining land. It is contended that, thus, the High Court had no jurisdiction on its original side to pass any orders in relation to the cause of action being asserted against the appellant which has arisen at Village Shirgaon, Taluka Maval, in Pune district where the land in question and subject matter of the impugned order granting temporary injunction, is situated. The second ground of assail is to the effect that an order granting temporary injunction could not have been passed against the appellant “who is not a party” to the suit.
3. To appreciate the rival contentions, at the outset, it would be necessary to note the operative part of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge against the appellant (in which the appellant is described as respondent) which reads thus:
“ORDER
(I) The interim application stands partly allowed.
(II) The respondent shall not restrain the Court Receiver and/or the applicants from using the subject road to access the subject Stud Farm either by itself or through its employees, servants and agents, in any manner whatsoever.
(III) The respondent shall ensure that the gates placed on the subject road are open whenever the Court Receiver and/or the applicants use the subject road to access the subject Stud Farm.
(IV) The respondent shall remove the “Y” shaped angles fixed on the fence, protruding on the subject road within four weeks from today.
(V) The contempt petition stands dismissed.
(VI) It is hereby made clear that the parties are at liberty to agitate their claims over the road, as regards proprietary title thereto as well as the right of user thereof, in an appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum and such proceedings, if instituted, be decided on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove, which are confined to the determination of the instant application and petition. (VI) Costs in cause.
(VII) In view of disposal of the application and contempt petition, Court Receiver’s Report also stands disposed.”
(Emphasis supplied)
4. Briefly the facts are: One Mr. Anil K. Bodani, father of respondent No. 1, filed in this Court on the Original Side, the suit in question (Suit No. 924 of 2001) inter-alia against respondent Nos. 3 to 22 (defendants). Mr. Anil K. Bodani passed away on 20 December 2014 leaving behind his wife Chandirka (original plaintiff no. 2) and three children. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original plaintiffs) are the sons of late Anil K. Bodani, who substitute the original plaintiff and who are now pursuing the suit.
5. The plaintiffs were shareholders and members of respondent No. 3 Manju Meadows Pvt. Ltd. (for short ‘the company’). The aggregate shareholding of plaintiffs constituted 99.96% of the issued and subscribed paid up share capital of the company. The case of the plaintiffs in the suit inter-alia is to the effect that with a view to reduce the shareholding of the original plaintiff to minority, the defendants to the suit (rival group) had engaged in a series of actions that were fraudulent and illegal. Such actions were inter-alia purporting to reduce the shareholding of the pla
