Judicial discipline requires promptness in delivering judgments; mere delay does not suffice to set aside an order unless it causes demonstrable prejudice.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK ARADHE, C.J.

1. In these appeals preferred under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Act of 2015), the appellants have questioned the validity of order dated 5^th June 2023 by which application for injunction filed by Cheerful Trade and Realty Developers Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Prawas Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd.) (plaintiff No.1) and Aristo Realty Developers Ltd. (plaintiff No.2), has been allowed and the ad- interim order of injunction dated 26^th October 2021 has been made absolute. In order to appreciate the appellants’ challenge to the impugned order, relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra.

2. The facts giving rise to filing of these appeals, in nutshell, are that Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. (defendant No.1) issued a letter of sanction in favour of defendant No.2 for an ad-hoc credit limit of Rs.10 Crores. The petitioner, by a communication dated 1^st August 2008 informed the Bank that the Bank has sanctioned cash credit facility of Rs.50 Crores to defendant No.2 and plaintiff No.1 is agreeable to pledge 2,25,000 (two lac twenty five thousand) shares of M/s.Shree Global Tradefin Ltd. (SGTL). Between 1^st August 2008 to 29^th March 2012, 9 pledge forms were executed by the plaintiffs with the Bank. Plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 pledged 60,00,000 (sixty lac) shares and 15,00,000 (fifteen lac) shares respectively, in favour of the Bank for the credit limit sanctioned by the Bank in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Two supplemental agreements were executed on 27^th June 2017 and 7^th August 2017 between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3, respectively. The borrower viz. defendant No.2 was declared as non-performing asset. On 25^th November 2020 Lakshmi Vilas Bank got merged with the DBS Bank. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). A notice for initiation of sale of pledged shares was issued on 16^th June 2021 by defendant No.1 to the plaintiffs as well as the defendant Nos.2 and 3.

3. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration that there was no valid pledge of shares and sought return of the same. Along with the suit an interim application (L) No.21398 of 2021 was filed for temporary injunction restraining defendant No.1 from selling, transferring, alienating and/or disposing of the shares allegedly pledged with defendant No.1 and also to direct defendant No.1 to deposit the proceeds received from sale of such pledged shares with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also sought a mandatory injunction to direct defendant No.1 to render accounts in respect of any dividend/bonus shares received by defendant No.1 in respect of the pledged shares. The learned Single Judge, by an ad-interim order dated 26^th October 2021 inter alia; held that each of the pledges has a prescribed closure date. The learned Single Judge further noticed that the plaintiffs have sought return of their securities and after the suit was instituted, shares worth Rs.15,00,000 (fifteen lac) have been sold. The learned Single Judge, therefore, restrained the defendants from selling, alienating, transferring or disposing of the shares pledged with defendant No.1 in a DMAT form.

4. The plaintiffs filed another interim application (L) No. 13622 of 2022 in which a direction was sought to the defendants to disclose the quantum of pledged shares sold by defendant No.1 along with price at which the same were sold, from the date of passing of the ad-interim order and to deposit the proceeds received from sale of such pledged shares with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs als