The court held that an ex parte ad interim injunction on the lines of an Anton Piller order cannot be granted if the plaintiff has suppressed material facts or made misleading averments in its pleadings, or if the plaintiff lacks bona fide and good faith.

( 1 ) WITH the consent of the parties we treat this appeal and the application as on day's list and dispose of both of them by the following judgment and order.

( 2 ) THE appeal has been filed by Bucyrus Europe Limited, a company having its office at Becor House, Green Lane, Lincoln LN-6 7dl, United Kingdom and bucyrus India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) purportedly against order Nos. 1, 2 and 3 dated 11th August, 2004 of the learned Trial Judge. It is common ground that so far as order No. 1 is concerned there has been some misconception on the part of the learned Trial Judge. The appeal has substantially been filed against order No. 2 of the same date by which the learned Judge refused to grant any ex parte ad interim order of injunction and was pleased to direct notice to be issued on the defendant namely, Vulcan industries Engineering Pvt. Ltd. having its office at the district of Anand in the State of Gujarat (hereinafter called the defendant ). The learned Judge also refused to pass any order for appointment of receiver and also in connection with the said prayer also directed notice to be issued on the defendant.

( 3 ) ALONG with the appeal, a petition for injunction was filed for granting an ex parte ad interim order of injunction.

( 4 ) THE High Court on being so moved, on 17th September, 2004 issued an ex parte ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, stocking for sale, offering for sale, marketing, advertising and distributing in any other manner or dealing with the impugned product of the defendant having been produced from any of the drawings being Annexure 'a' or any design substantially similar thereto by using the engineering, design, shape and configuration and get-up of the product of the appellant. The Court also passed an ad interim order of the injunction appointing a Special Officer authorising him to enter the premises of the defendant as mentioned in the cause title and any other premises within the power and control of the defendant and to inspect the same and seize all goods, papers, documents, challans and invoices showing placement orders of the products including the design relating to marketing and selling of the same. The aforesaid exparte order of injunction was given for a limited period of 14 days and this Court appointed a learned counsel as Special Officer. The Court, however, directed the appellant to serve the defendant by courier service and also under registered post. The matter was made returnable on 24th September, 2004.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER the matter was again mentioned ex parte by the learned Counsel for the appellants and as the Special Officer was unwell another Special Officer was appointed directing him to carry out the said order and the returnable date was extended to 6th October, 2004 and it was directed that the interim order should continue in the meantime and the copy of the said order was directed to be served on the defendant by the Special Officer who will go to spot to carry out the order dated 17th September, 2004. Thereafter on 6th October the special Officer filed his report and a full contested hearing took place both on 6th October and 8th October, 2004 on the question of grant and continuance of ad interim, order.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing in support of the defendant seriously opposed the continuation of the ad interim order on various grounds. First of all, the learned Counsel submitted that in the injunction petition which was filed in the Court below, the appellant has clearly admitted that they are engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of various equipments like W2000 (24/96)draglines and the appellant No. 2 have been carrying on the business of marketing the said equipments in India for the last 10 years. In paragraph 5, it has been admitted that the appellant No. 1 some time in January, 1997 made technical and engineering drawings relating to its prod