Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 1227

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Dhinoo Gopalakrishnan - Appellant
Versus
RKA Engineering Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
C.R.P. Nos. 2125, 2126, 2127 of 2024, C.M.P. Nos. 11274, 11275, 11297, 11298, 11283, 11299 of 2024
Decided On : 09-01-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : R. Praveen
For the Respondent : M. Udaya Bhanu

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.R.Praveen (in all cases)
For the Respondent: M/s.Prof.M.Udaya Bhanu (in all cases)

Ex parte injunctions must adhere to procedural safeguards, including recording reasons and providing notice, to avoid illegality.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 39 Rule 1 - Ex parte ad-interim injunction - The court set aside the ex parte ad-interim injunction granted without following due procedure, emphasizing the necessity of recording reasons and providing notice before such orders are issued. (Paras 10, 13, 14)

(B) Legal principles - The court highlighted the importance of adherence to procedural safeguards in granting injunctions, stating that an injunction cannot be granted solely based on pleadings without sufficient justification. (Paras 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an ex parte ad-interim injunction order in a suit regarding a lease agreement, claiming improper procedure and lack of evidence for the injunction.

Findings of Court:
The court found the injunction order was issued without proper reasons and in violation of legal standards.

Issues: The main issues were whether the injunction was justified and if proper procedures were followed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lower court's failure to record reasons and provide notice constituted an illegal exercise of discretion.

Result: Civil Revision Petitions allowed; injunction set aside.

ORDER :

1. Since the issue involved in all the Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner, who is the 2^nd defendant in the Suit in O.S.No.82 of 2024, on the file of the District Munsif Court, at Sriperumbudur, has come forward with the Present Revisions challenging the order of ex parte ad-interim injunction, granted on 22.03.2024 respectively in I.A.Nos.2 to 4 of 2024 in O.S.No.82 of 2024, by the learned District Munsif, Sriperumbudur.

3. Mr.R.Praveen, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners / 2^nd Defendant would submit that the petitioner is the Managing Partner of the 3^rd Respondent partnership Firm, “Ramakrishna Engineering Company, which was originally formed by Mr.K.Seetharaman and Mr.L.Gopalakrishnan, be executing a Partnership Deed, dated 10.08.1974. The Partnership Firm involved in the business of manufacturing Hi-Technology Engineering Products such as Rockets and Missile Components, Systems and Sub-Systems and related Aerospace Engineering items in association with Government of India's respective Departments. The Partnership Firm enjoys a 99 year lease hold rights over the land situated at A1, Sipcot Industrial Park, Irungattukotai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The 1^st Respondent / the Director, RKA Engineering Pvt Ltd., approached the Partnership Firm to let out an area ad-measuring 5000 Sq.ft comprised in S.No.99(pt) 100(pt) at A1, Sipcot Industrial Park, Irungattukotai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, to carry on Industrial activities (Rented Premises), and the parties mutually executed a Lease Agreement, dated 22.01.2021.

4. It is further submitted that the term of Lease Agreement expired on 21.11.2021. Petitioner formally terminated the Lease Agreement by issuing a legal Notice through his counsel to the 1^st Respondent on 22.02.2024. Subsequently, the Partnership Firm dissolved on 26.02.2024. The 1^st Respondent sent reply Notice dated 08.03.2024, denying the existence of the Lease Agreement, by calling it a formal document executed for the only purpose of registering the 1^st Respondent Company and further denied to pay the rental amounts due on that account. Subsequently, the Respondents 1 and 2 preferred the Suit in O.S.No.82 of 2024 before the District Munsif, Sriperumbudur and obtained an order of ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the petitioner without following due procedure of law. Hence, the learned counsel prays for allowing the Revisions by setting aside the order of the Court below.

5. Prof.M.Udaya Bhanu, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd Respondent filed a common affidavit and would submit that the Petitioner and the 2^nd Respondent are husband and wife and got married in the year 1997. The Company was established in the year 2001. Since from the very inception of the Company, the Petitioner and the 2^nd Respondent were in marital bond and it is absolutely absurd to state that the 2^nd Respondent is a stranger and approached the Petitioner to let out the area of 5000 Sq.ft. It is not necessity for the 2^nd respondent to incorporate a Partnership Firm to run a business in Petitioner's Premises. Ramakrishna Engineering Company handled ISRO projects in the name of RK Aerospace and in the year 2020 it was closed due to non-payment of GST and still the petitioner is a defaulter before the GST. The total area of Ramakrishna Engineering Company is 2 Acres and the Petitioner let out 5000 Sq.ft to the Respondents 1 and 2 through an unregistered Lease Agreement without any witness. The petitioner and the 3^rd Respondent not mentioned the boundaries for the let out premises. The 2^nd respondent not even visited the Company, since the inception of the RKA Engineering Pvt Ltd., Petitioner alone managed the Company and the 2^nd respondent acknowledged the interest of the Petitioner for his career development, the petitioner made the 2^nd respondent to sign the lease agreement. Since the petitioner was her husband,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document