Point of Law : Granting of injunction in case of a money decree - Unless a very strong prima facie case is made out with respect to defendant intending to defraud the plaintiff, no injunction can be granted against the property of the defendant nor can the defendants be asked to secure the plaintiff in a money decree suit.

JUDGMENT :

Shekhar B. Saraf, J.

Facts:

1. This is an application by the defendant/respondent for vacating of the ex parte order dated September 16, 2021 granting ad-interim order of injunction in C.S. No. 180 whereby the defendant/respondent was restrained from selling or transferring coal or coke equivalent to value of about Rs. 36 Lacs. The claim raised by the plaintiff/petitioner in C.S. No. 180 is on account of coke sold to the defendant/respondent while in C.S. No. 181, 182 and 183 the contract was for supply of coal to the defendant which was to be converted to coke and returned to the plaintiff for an amount commensurate to the value of the coke supplied to the petitioner. A purchase order was placed by the defendant on the plaintiff on December 1, 2020 for 500 MT of Lam Coke which was received by the plaintiff. Against such purchase order the plaintiff duly supplied 515.31 MT of Lam Coke. On August 19, 2021, the plaintiff raised a demand notice upon the respondent for a money claim amounting to Rs. 35,72,141/-. On August 21, 2021, an FIR was registered against the directors of the plaintiff company namely Hemant Goyal and Anil Goyal by one Prakash Kumar Agarwala who is the authorised signatory of Ayesh Coal Trading Company (sister company of the defendant). Pursuant to this, both accused directors of the petitioner/plaintiff company were arrested on September 10, 2021.

2. The accused directors of the plaintiff company had affirmed CS No. 180 of 2021 on September 6, 2021, and GA No. 1 was filed on September 9, 2021. Thereafter, the bail petition of the accused directors was rejected on September 15, 2021 by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad. On September 16, 2021 ex-parte ad interim order for injunction was granted by a co-ordinate bench of this High Court. Pursuant to an order passed by the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court dated September 21, 2021 granting bail to the accused directors both of them were finally released on bail on September 28, 2021. The interim injunction order was extended on October 7, 2021 by the learned single judge till November 30, 2021. Hence, the present application has been filed to vacate the interim order which was further extended till December 13, 2021 via order passed by this court dated December 9, 2021.

3. The nature of claim in C.S. No. 181, 182 and 183 of 2021 arises from agreements for supply of coal and after conversion of the same Lam Coke to be supplied to the plaintiff commensurate to the value of the coal supplied to the defendant. The ad interim ex-parte order of injunction granted in G.A. No. 1 in C.S. 180 of 2021 seeks to secure the plaintiff/petitioner by restraining the defendant from disposing/selling the goods in a money decree. All these applications were heard on the same date as G.A. No. 1 in C.S. 180 of 2021 and the timeline of filing these applications is also similar; only the claim amount for money decree sought is different and the same is as follows:

(a) C.S. No. 180 – 36 Lakhs

(b) C.S. No. 181 – 18 Lakhs

(c) C.S. No. 182 – 2.04 Crores

(d) C.S. No. 183 – 1.47 Crores

Accordingly, all the above matters were taken up together and a conjoint order is being passed with regard to the vacating applications filed.

Arguments:

4. Mr. Anirban Ray, counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant argues that it is apparent that the suit instituted by the plaintiff is for a money claim allegedly for price of goods sold. The claim of the plaintiff is at best an unsecured money claim. He also argues that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case against the defendant that warrants injunction on Lam Coke involved in the suit for securing any part of the money claim sought for in the suits. The Counsel for the defendant relies on Sunil Kakrania & Ors. –-v-M/s. Saltee Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr reported in AIR 2009 Cal 260 to contend that when the suit was only for recovery of money, the immovable property cannot be the property in dispute in suit simply because the money claimed