Gita Mittal, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the above suit for recovery, declaration, dissolution & rendition of accounts and mandatory injunction. Alongwith the plaint, the application seeking interim reliefs being IA No. 16915/2010 has been filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking the following ad interim ex-parte injunction orders:-

"i. Thereby directing the defendant No. 5 not to release any payment in favour of defendant No. 1 till the pendency of the present suit;

ii. Restraining the defendant No. 1 and 2 or their agents, servants, representatives, etc. from operating the bank account bearing No. 166189464001, with the Barakhamba Road Branch of H.S.B.C. Bank, till the final disposal of the accompanying suit.

iii. Restraining defendant No. 3 or their agents, servants, representatives etc. from operating the bank account bearing No. 051-827889-001, with the Barakhamba Road Branch of H.S.B.C. Bank, till the final disposal of the accompanying suit.

iv. Restraining Defendant No. 1 from transferring any amount to the account of Defendant No. 3.

v. Restraining Defendants from opening any other bank account in the name of Defendant No. 1;

vi. Restraining defendants from remitting any amount overseas directly or indirectly, from any of their bank accounts in India.”

2. IA No. 16916/2010 has been filed under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC praying for an order of attachment before judgment in the following terms:-

"(A) Direct the defendant to furnish security as deem fit by this Hon'ble Court to secure the suit amount with interest;

(B) If the Defendants fails to furnish the security then following bank accounts of the defendants may be attached:

(i) Money lying in Defendant No. 1's bank account bearing No. 166189464001, with the Barakhamba Road Branch of HSBC Bank.

(ii) Money lying in Defendant No. 3's bank account bearing No. 051-827889-001, with the Barakhamba Road Branch of HSBC Bank.”

3. As against this, the defendants have filed IA No. 1218/2011 under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC praying for vacation of the order which was passed on 14th December, 2010.

4. These applications raise similar, almost identical, questions of law and fact and are accordingly taken up together for disposal by this order.

5. The PICO Deepali Overlays Consortium, the first defendant (hereinafter referred to as "PDOC” for brevity) is a compendium of the PICO Hong Kong Limited-defendant No. 2 herein (hereinafter referred to as "PHK” for brevity) and PICO Event Marketing (India) Private Limited-defendant No. 3 herein (hereinafter referred to as "PEMI" for brevity).

6. The defendant No. 2 is a company incorporated under the laws of Hong Kong having its registered office at Hong Kong while the defendant No. 3 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956.

7. The Pico Event Marketing (India) Pvt. Limited-defendant No. 3 herein is stated to be a subsidiary of the Pico India Exhibits Contractor Pvt. Ltd. (PIEC), which is a Singapore based company. The defendant No. 3, is stated to have been incorporated in November, 2009 under the Indian Companies Act, 1956.

8. So far as the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants is concerned, the plaintiff relies on a Consortium Agreement dated 19th December, 2009 in terms whereof it was agreed to incorporate a joint venture company in which the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 2 & 3 would have shareholdings percentage ratio of 20%, 60% and 20% respectively. It is the case of the plaintiff that it was agreed that all profits and losses would be shared by the parties in such ratio.

9. It is an admitted position that the first defendant was specifically incorporated in terms of the said compendium for the purposes of bidding and execution of the overlays tenders floated by the Organising Committee, Common Wealth Games 2010 Delhi. It is the plaintiff's stand that though the defendant No. 1 has been styled as a consortium and incorporated as a company under the Companies Act, 1956, but in terms of operation