Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. SUBBIAH, J.
Sical Logistics Limited, rep. By its authorised signatory, T. Subramaniam
Versus
Kyko Global Inc. & Others
Original Application Nos. 593 & 594 of 2012 & Application No. 4619 of 2013 & Original Application No. 767 of 2013 & Application No. 5089 of 2013 & Application Nos. 6292 & 6293 of 2013 & Application No. 4297 of 2013 in C.S. No. 495 of 2012
Decided on: 28-03-2014
The Court held that the prayer in the suit had become infructuous as the decree obtained by the defendants from the Canadian Court was not obtained by fraud and the plaintiff had failed to put forth their defence before the Canadian Court. The Court also held that the defendants were not liable to be punished for disobedience of the order of the Court as they were not aware of the extension of the interim injunction and the application for punishing them was filed after the interim injunction was vacated. The Court further held that the anti-suit injunction filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable and the amendment applications filed by the plaintiff were liable to be dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a company, filed a suit against the defendants, alleging that the defendants had obtained a loan from the plaintiff's subsidiary companies by creating forged documents and had filed a suit in a Canadian Court against the plaintiff and the subsidiary companies. The plaintiff also filed applications for interim injunctions to restrain the defendants from using the alleged forged documents and from instituting or continuing any legal proceedings based on the forged documents. The Court granted interim injunctions in favour of the plaintiff. However, the defendants obtained an ex parte decree from the Canadian Court. The plaintiff then filed an application to punish the defendants for disobedience of the Court's order and also filed an application for an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from executing the Canadian Court's decree. The defendants filed an application to vacate the interim injunction granted by the Court. The plaintiff also filed applications for amendment of the plaint and the application for punishing the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the defendants were not aware of the extension of the interim injunction and that the application for punishing them was filed after the interim injunction was vacated. The Court also found that the anti-suit injunction filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable and the amendment applications filed by the plaintiff were liable to be dismissed.
Issues: 1. Whether the prayer in the suit had become infructuous? 2. Whether the defendants were liable to be punished for disobedience of the order of the Court? 3. Whether the interim injunction granted by the Court restraining the defendants from executing the Canadian Court's decree was sustainable in law? 4. Whether the anti-suit injunction filed by the plaintiff was maintainable? 5. Whether the applications filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint and the application for punishing the defendants were liable to be allowed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the prayer in the suit had become infructuous as the decree obtained by the defendants from the Canadian Court was not obtained by fraud and the plaintiff had failed to put forth their defence before the Canadian Court. 2. The Court held that the defendants were not liable to be punished for disobedience of the order of the Court as they were not aware of the extension of the interim injunction and the application for punishing them was filed after the interim injunction was vacated. 3. The Court held that the interim injunction granted by the Court restraining the defendants from executing the Canadian Court's decree was not sustainable in law as the decree was not obtained by fraud. 4. The Court held that the anti-suit injunction filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable as the plaintiff had failed to put forth their defence before the Canadian Court. 5. The Court held that the applications filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint and the application for punishing the defendants were liable to be dismissed as the prayer in the suit had become infructuous.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, the application for punishing the defendants, the application for an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from executing the Canadian Court's decree, and the applications for amendment of the plaint and the application for punishing the defendants. The Court allowed the defendants' application to vacate the interim injunction granted by the Court.
R.Subbiah, J.
1. Original Application No.593 of 2012 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff seeking for ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents 1, 2 & 5/defendants 1, 2 & 5, their representatives from using the fabricated documents mentioned in para 6 of this Original Application in any legal proceedings, pending disposal of the above suit.
2. Original Application No.594 of 2012 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff seeking for ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants 1, 2 & 5 and their representatives from instituting or continuing any legal proceedings with fabricated documents mentioned in para 6 of this Original Application, pending disposal of the above suit.
3. Application No.4619 of 2013 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of C.P.C., to punish the respondents 1 & 2/Defendants 1 & 2 for willful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 30.07.2012 and 19.11.2012 passed in Application No.594 of 2012.
4. Original Application No.767 of 2013 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff seeking for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents 1, 2 & 5/Defendants 1, 2 & 5 from in any manner proceeding to enforce or otherwise execute the decree of the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada dated 09.11.2012 in CV-12-2476-00, which had been obtained by the respondents in violation of the order of this Court granted on 30.07.2012 and extended on 19.11.2012 in A.No.594 of 2012 in C.S.No.495/2012, pending disposal of this suit. In this application, this Court has granted interim injunction on 04.10.2013.
5. Application No.5089 of 2013 has been filed by the applicant/1st respondent/1st defendant seeking to vacate the order of interim injunction granted by this Court on 04.10.2013 in O.A.No.767 of 2013 in C.S.No.495 of 2012.
6. The above applications are disposed of by way of this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the suit.
7. The plaintiff viz., Sical Logistics Limited has filed the present suit as against the defendants 1 to 15 for the following reliefs:-
i) for declaration declaring the Extracts of the Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting dated July 15, 2010 of the Plaintiff Company and purported to have been singed by 10th, 11th and 14th defendants as null and void;
ii) for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants 1 & 2 from using the Guarantee documents dated 2nd August 2010 purported to have been signed by 10th, 11th and 14th defendants in any legal proceedings;
iii) for permanent injunction restraining the 5th defendant from using the two undated cheques issued & signed by 7th defendant of the Plaintiff Company in any legal proceedings;
iv) for permanent injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants from using the Bill of Exchange – Promissory note purported to have been executed by the 6th defendant and the 9th defendant through 7th, 8th, 12th and 13th defendants dated 31st August 2010 in any legal proceedings;
v) for permanent injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants from using the Negotiable Instrument dated 27.10.2010 purported to have been executed by the 6th defendant and the 9th defendant through 7th, 8th, 12th and 13th defendants in any legal proceedings;
vi) for permanent injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants from using the Promissory Note dated 08.03.2010 executed by the 6th defendant and the 9th defendant through 7th, 8th, 12th and 13th defendants in any legal proceedings;
vii) for permanent injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants from using all other documents in any legal proceedings which are in their custody as the documents executed by the plaintiff and their representative without the permission of this Court;
Viii) for costs of the suit.
8. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is as follows:- The plaintiff-company is engaged in the business of providing end-to-end Logistics service across the country and has subs
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
