2020 Supreme(Del) 647

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, J.
Vistra Itcl (india) Ltd & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Lalit Kumar Jain & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 288 of 2019
Decided On : 11-06-2020

Headnote:

Suit for recovery of money with interest, invested by plaintiff in defendant company, enforcement of its right to recover from defendants who executed personal guarantee and restrain the transfer or attempt to transfer any pledged shares of defendant company. Defendant company filed an application seeking mandatory injunction against the plaintiffs with the prayers to enable Defendant No. 4 to undertake its business and affairs including by raising finances to meet the deposit amount of Rs 4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores) in terms of the SC Order by creating an appropriate security in respect of such number of the Unsold Units in Towers C1 and C2 in Defendant No. 4''s Project and/or by creating a hypothecation on the future receivables of sold units in Towers C1 and C2 in Defendant No. 4''s Project as detailed in Paragraph 65 above without the requirement of any consent from the Plaintiffs in that regard; grant a mandatory injunction and pass such necessary orders and directions against Plaintiff No. 2 to enable Defendant No. 4 to undertake its business and affairs including by raising finance for re-commencing and completing the development of the Project including Towers C1 and C2 by creating appropriate security in respect of Defendant No. 4''s Project including the Land and the development of Towers C1 and C2 thereon and future receivables of units in Towers C1 and C2 in Defendant No. 4''s Project as detailed in Paragraph 65 above, without requirement of any consent from the Plaintiffs in that regard; pass such prohibitory orders and injunction restraining the Plaintiffs and/or their employees, servants, affiliates, associates from interfering and/or obstructing in the business of Defendant No.4 including undertaking development and construction of the Project 45 Nirvana Hills; pass such necessary orders and directions appointing person(s) / committee of by this Hon''ble Court to oversee and monitor the due implementation and execution of Defendant No.4''s Project by these Defendants under the aegis of this Hon''ble Court. Plaintiffs objected to the maintainability of the application and contended that the defendant Nos.1 and 3 have no right to represent defendant No.4, the defendant Nos.1 and 3 had filed an application before this Court, advance copy whereof was served on the plaintiffs, wherein the plea was that even if part assets of defendant No.3 were sold they would be worth more than Rs. 400 crores and thus being the 99% shareholder of the defendant No.4, defendant No.3 can deposit the sum of Rs. 4 crores to meet the exigencies arising. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 had already filed a suit in Pune seeking specific performance of the agreement between the parties against the plaintiffs herein and when a query was raised to learned counsel for the applicants that the remedy sought in the present application could be addressed in the suit filed at Pune and why no application was filed in the said suit, learned counsel for the applicants states that the present application was maintainable both in this suit as well as the suit at Pune and thus the applicants preferred the application in the present suit. Court held that the reliefs as sought by the applicants/defendant Nos.1 and 3 cannot be granted either under Order 39 Rule 1(a) CPC or by way of equity. Consequently, the application is dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

Suit for recovery of money with interest, invested by plaintiff in defendant company, enforcement of its right to recover from defendants who executed personal guarantee and restrain the transfer or attempt to transfer any pledged shares of defendant company. Defendant company filed an application seeking mandatory injunction against the plaintiffs with the prayers to enable Defendant No. 4 to undertake its business and affairs including by raising finances to meet the deposit amount of Rs 4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores) in terms of the SC Order by creating an appropriate security in respect of such number of the Unsold Units in Towers C1 and C2 in Defendant No. 4''s Project and/or by creating a hypothecation on the future receivables of sold units in Towers C1 and C2 in Defendant No. 4''s Project as detailed in Paragraph 65 above without the requirement of any consent from the Plaintiffs in that regard; grant a mandatory injunction and pass such necessary orders and directions against Plaintiff No. 2 to enable Defendant No. 4 to undertake its business and affairs including by raising finance for re-commencing and completing the development of the Project including Towers C1 and C2 by creating appropriate security in respect of Defendant No. 4''s Project including the Land and the development of Towers C1 and C2 thereon and future receivables of units in Towers C1 and C2 in Defendant No. 4''s Project as detailed in Paragraph 65 above, without requirement of any consent from the Plaintiffs in that regard; pass such prohibitory orders and injunction restraining the Plaintiffs and/or their employees, servants, affiliates, associates from interfering and/or obstructing in the business of Defendant No.4 including undertaking development and construction of the Project 45 Nirvana Hills; pass such necessary orders and directions appointing person(s) / committee of by this Hon''ble Court to oversee and monitor the due implementation and execution of Defendant No.4''s Project by these Defendants under the aegis of this Hon''ble Court. Plaintiffs objected to the maintainability of the application and contended that the defendant Nos.1 and 3 have no right to represent defendant No.4, the defendant Nos.1 and 3 had filed an application before this Court, advance copy whereof was served on the plaintiffs, wherein the plea was that even if part assets of defendant No.3 were sold they would be worth more than Rs. 400 crores and thus being the 99% shareholder of the defendant No.4, defendant No.3 can deposit the sum of Rs. 4 crores to meet the exigencies arising. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 had already filed a suit in Pune seeking specific performance of the agreement between the parties against the plaintiffs herein and when a query was raised to learned counsel for the applicants that the remedy sought in the present application could be addressed in the suit filed at Pune and why no application was filed in the said suit, learned counsel for the applicants states that the present application was maintainable both in this suit as well as the suit at Pune and thus the applicants preferred the application in the present suit.

Finding of the Court:

Court held that the reliefs as sought by the applicants/defendant Nos.1 and 3 cannot be granted either under Order 39 Rule 1(a) CPC or by way of equity. Consequently, the application is dismissed.

Issues: Whether the reliefs as sought by the applicants/defendant Nos.1 and 3 can be granted either under Order 39 Rule 1(a) CPC or by way of equity.

Ratio Decidendi: The reliefs sought by the applicants/defendant Nos.1 and 3 do not arise out of the plaintiffs' cause of action nor are incidental thereto. At this stage it would also be appropriate to note that the applicants/defendant Nos.1and 3 had filed a prior suit before the Pune Civil Court seeking a decree of specific performance of the agreement against the plaintiffs herein and the reliefs sought in the present application though may be incidental to the prayers in the suit instituted in Pune Civil Court but are in no way incidental to the reliefs sought by the plaintiff in the present suit. Hence this Court finds no ground to grant the reliefs of mandatory injunction as prayed by the applicants/defendant Nos.1 and 3 under Order 39 Rule 1(a) CPC.

Final Decision: Application dismissed.