Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.
Ashok Kumar Katiyar – Appellant
Versus
Charan Jeet Singh and Others – Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 52 of 2024
Decided On : 01-08-2024
INJUNCTION - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IN COMMERCIAL DISPUTE - Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, Section 151 C.P.C., Section 12A of Commercial Court Act, 2015 - The court discussed the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and Section 151 of the C.P.C. regarding the grant of temporary injunctions, emphasizing the necessity of establishing a prima facie case and the urgency of the situation. It also interpreted Section 12A of the Commercial Court Act, clarifying that pre-institution mediation is not required when urgent interim relief is sought. The court's decision to uphold the trial court's injunction was influenced by the plaintiffs' established possession and the defendant's failure to complete the transfer of the petrol pump.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant-appellant sold a portion of property, including a petrol pump, to the plaintiff-respondent and was required to complete the transfer formalities. The plaintiffs filed for a temporary injunction to prevent the defendant from interfering with their possession and operation of the petrol pump, claiming that the entire sale consideration had been paid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for the injunction, as they were in possession of the property and the petrol pump was operational under their management. The trial court's decision to grant an ex-parte injunction was deemed appropriate given the circumstances.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in granting an ex-parte temporary injunction without the plaintiffs exhausting the remedy of pre-institution mediation as required under Section 12A of the Commercial Court Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 12A of the Commercial Court Act does not apply when urgent interim relief is required, as was the case here. The defendant's interference necessitated immediate action, justifying the trial court's decision to grant the injunction.
Final Decision: The appeal by the defendant-appellant was dismissed, affirming the trial court's order granting the temporary injunction.
JUDGMENT :
VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.
1. This first appeal from order has been filed on behalf of defendant-appellant against the order dated 28.08.2023, passed by Commercial Court, Kanpur Nagar, in Commercial Suit No. 46 of 2023 (Charan Jeet Singh and others vs. Ashok Kumar Katiyar and another) by which temporary injunction was granted in favour of plaintiffs on the application filed under Order 39 rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. (Paper No. 6-C). The defendant-appellant was restrained to interfere in peaceful possession of plaintiffs-respondents over property no. 117/A-1, situated at Arazi Nos. 594, 595 and 596 in village Barsaitpur Tehsil & District Kanpur Nagar. The defendant was also restrained to interfere in operation of petrol pump, its bank account and to maintain status quo in respect of suit property.
2. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the defendant-appellant was the owner and in possession of property no. 17/A-1, situated over Arazi Nos. 594, 595 and 596 in village Barsaitpur Tehsil & District Kanpur Nagar. The defendant-appellant has sold 700 sq. yards (585.27 sq. meter) land of the aforesaid property to the plaintiff along with petrol pump through registered sale deed on 24.02.2020. The possession of petrol pump had already been handed over by defendant appellant to the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 on 19.10.2019. A memorandum of undertaking was executed between the parties on 27.06.2019. It was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 will pay Rs. 6,25,00,000/-to the defendant-appellant as sale consideration. The plaintiff no. 1 had already paid Rs. 1,00,00,000/-at the time of execution of memorandum of undertaking and the remaining amount was agreed to pay at the time of execution of sale deed. It was also agreed that defendant-appellant will transfer petrol pump to the plaintiff no. 1 after completing formalities with Hindustan Petroleum. The defendant-appellant had sent legal notice to the plaintiff no. 1 in the month of December, 2019 admitting therein that he received Rs. 2,23,00,000/-and Rs. 4,02,00,000/-is still outstanding. The sale deed in respect of petrol pump as well as suit property was executed by defendant-appellant in favour of plaintiff-respondent no. 1 on 24.02.2020 and possession was also handed over to the plaintiff-respondent no. 1.
4. The petrol pump is being run by plaintiff, but defendant-appellant has failed to complete the formalities for transfer of petrol pump in favour of plaintiff and demanding extra Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, whereas, entire sale consideration has already been paid by the plaintiff at the time of execution of sale deed.
5. The plaintiffs-respondents have filed suit for injunction seeking direction that the defendant-appellant may be directed to transfer the petrol pump in pursuance of sale deed dated 24.02.2020 in favour of plaintiff after completing formalities with Hindustan Petroleum. It is further prayed in the suit that the defendant-appellant and his agents may be restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of plaintiff-respondent no. 1 in respect of suit property. The plaintiffs-respondents have also moved an application for interim injunction under Order 39 rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. (Paper No. 6C). The trial court after considering the fact that petrol pump along with suit property has already been purchased by plaintiff-respondent no. 1 through registered sale deed on 24.02.2020 and he is in possession over the same, has granted ex-parte injunction in favour of plaintiffs-respondents vide order dated 28.08.2023, which is impugned in the present appeal.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the plaintiff had failed to pay the remaining amount in terms of memorandum of undertaking dated 27.06.2019. It is further submitted that as per memorandum of unde
AI
A plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC if it discloses a cause of action, even if the defendant has sold the property, as triable issues exist regarding interference in rights.
Pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is mandatory; however, if mediation has occurred prior to suit registration, further mediation is not required.
The court emphasized the importance of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss when considering the grant of injunction in property disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience in deciding on temporary injunction. The judgment also highlig....
The appellate court must respect the trial court's discretion in granting injunctions unless shown to be arbitrary or perverse.
The court emphasized that failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations justifies the denial of interim injunctions in specific performance cases.
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
