The court emphasized the importance of defendants' financial stability and core strength in meeting their obligations and found the disclosed amounts miniscule compared to the claimed amount by the plaintiffs.

ORDER

I.A. 8205/2023

The present application has been preferred by defendant no. 3 seeking to place on the record additional fact(s) and document(s).

Bearing in mind the disclosures made, the present application is allowed and the said document(s) is taken on record.

The application shall stand disposed of.

I.A. 5728/2023

1. The defendants have moved the instant application seeking permission to sell one of the properties standing in the name of defendant no. 3 for a net consideration of approximately Rs. 74 crores, subject to terms that may be imposed by the Court. The property is stated to be situate at Shanti Niketan Phase III, Survey No. 138, Hissa No. 5 admeasuring 13376.55 square meters located in Village Pashan, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune. For the purposes of evaluating the prayer that is made, the following essential facts may be noticed in brief.

2. The suit itself is for recovery of monies asserted to be due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff. It came to be registered on 28 May 2019. While issuing summons on the suit, the Court in its order of 28 May 2019 noticed the essential facts as follows. The plaintiff no. 2 is stated to have entered into a Debentures Subscription Agreement^1[DSA^] dated 05 December 2014 along with defendant nos. 1 to 4. The Series A Tranche 1 Debentures were valued at INR 160 crores while Series A Tranche 2 at INR 40 crores. A separate DSA also came to be executed in respect of Series C DSA and comprised of Series C Tranche 1 aggregating INR 35 crores and Series C Tranche 2 amounting to INR 45 crores. In furtherance of the Debenture Trust Deeds which came to be executed in respect of Series A and Series C DSA, defendant No. 4 appointed plaintiff no. 1 as the trustee for the benefit of plaintiff no. 2.

3. Consequent to an alleged default, demand notices dated 05 October 2018 and 11 October 2018 came to be issued in terms of Section 13.2 of the Series A Debenture Trust Deed and Series C Debenture Trust Deed. The plaintiff alleges that the default was not cured. In fact, the defendants are stated to have questioned the allegation of default itself.

4. The Court while considering the application for ad interim injunction also took note of the fact that the ratification period had expired on 16 April 2019 as well as the fact that the Personal Guarantees proffered by defendant nos. 1 and 2 had also been invoked and a demand laid for payment of the redemption amounts. It also took note of the assertion of the plaintiffs that defendant no. 2 had already exited the country and was residing in Switzerland/United Kingdom and that there was a bona fide and serious apprehension that defendant no. 1, the father of defendant no. 2 and a co-guarantor may also flee from the country to evade his obligations under the Transaction Documents. In view of the aforesaid and upon the Court being satisfied that a prima facie case stood established coupled with the balance of convenience being found in favour of the plaintiffs, an ad interim injunction came to be issued restraining defendant nos. 1 to 3 from transferring, alienating, selling, parting with, disposing of or creating third party rights or interest or otherwise encumbering any and all of their movable and immovable assets, shares, properties or any other assets. A further injunction came to be granted restraining defendant nos. 1 to 3 and 5 from transferring or attempting to transfer any of the pledged shares and more particularly, those constituting 74% of the share capital of defendant no. 5. Defendant nos. 1 to 4 were further restrained from transferring or attempting to transfer the pledged shares of defendant no. 4 and which constituted 100% of its share capital.

5. The defendants thereafter appear to have moved the Court for modification of the aforesaid order as it stood post the variations made by the Court in its order of 09 July 2019. It becomes pertinent to note that by an order of 09 July 2019, the Court had clarified the ad interim