The importance of providing specific details and evidence to support claims in injunction applications and the need for a prima facie case to be established.

JUDGMENT

Jayant Nath, J. - IA Nos. 17787/2019 & 1954/2020

1. IA No.17787/2019 is filed under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking an ex-parte injunction to direct the defendant not to dispose of or alienate or encumber or part with possession of any assets, current, fixed, intangible, tangible including moveable and immoveable properties etc. to the tune of Rs.3,47,18,402.80 except in the ordinary course of business. Other reliefs regarding the bank accounts of the defendant are also sought.

2. IA No.1954/2020 is filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC seeking to vacate the order dated 16.12.2019.

3. The accompanying suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree for an amount of Rs.3,47,18,402.80.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff company entered into an arrangement for supply of cooling towers and its components with the defendant company, to be subsequently installed by the defendant in pursuance of its contract with its various customers. It is stated that the defendant was to provide for the timely release of the amount due and payable on account of the invoices vide which the goods in question were supplied. It is urged that despite repeated demands, the defendant has been dilly dallying and avoiding making payment of the balance due on account of the invoices. There is an apprehension that the defendant would siphon off the funds upon receipt from its customers. It is further urged that the defendant is in the habit of not making payment to its creditors and systematically siphoning off funds from its bank accounts received from the debtors.

5. It is further reiterated that the plaintiff has supplied cooling towers in question to the defendant on the assurance to release the amount forthwith. Now, with a view to defraud and cheat the plaintiff, the defendant has not disclosed the receipt of the amounts and avoided making payments on some pretext or the other. It is further stated that the plaintiff has also deposited Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred to as the GST) corresponding to the invoices raised. The defendant has also confirmed the receipt and supply of the goods in terms of the invoices by filing a return under GSTR 2A online on the GST portal. It is urged that the factum of receipt and supply of goods in question is admitted. Hence, the present suit.

6. The defendant has filed a written statement. In the written statement, it is stated that the defendant is one of the only four Indian Companies and approximately 50 world-wide holding a world standard certification in cooling towers. It is stated that the plaintiff is not a manufacturer of cooling towers and is engaged in the business of supply and trading of the raw materials required for manufacturing of cooling towers. The plaintiff has been a supplier of certain raw materials, i.e., resin, fiber, cobalt etc. to the defendant since 2017. The plaintiff has neither the expertise, nor any facilities for manufacturing cooling towers. It is stated that till 2019, the defendant made payments to the plaintiff on an "on account" basis and no invoices were raised by the plaintiff. The defendant and the plaintiff had a common accountant i.e. Mr.Sabal Singh Rawat, who was responsible for handling their inter-se transactions and the plaintiff colluded and conspired with Mr.Rawat to fudge and inflate the account to siphon money out of the defendant company. In 2019, in the course of an internal review, it came to the light that there were serious discrepancies in the amounts being claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant with the help of a reputed chartered accountant conducted an internal verification and following discrepancies were identified in the plaintiffs account:

"i. The Plaintiff Company had heavily overstated the value of the stocks supplied to the Answering Defendant. This was verified from the purchase invoices from vendor(s) of the Plaintiff.

ii. The invoices submitted by the Plaintiff were not in line with the actual ma