SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(SC) 290

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.A. DESAI AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.
Cotton Corporation of India Limited., Appellant
Versus
United Industrial Bank Limited and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 7348 of 1983 (Arising out of S. L. P. (Civil) No. 5906 of 1982), D/- 19-9-1983.

Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, A.K.Sil, M.A.RANGASWAMY, R.C.NAGARAJ, Radha Rangaswamy, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, SANKAR GHOSH

Headnote:IN APPROPRIATE CASE COURT CAN GRANT TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IN EXCERCISE OF INHERENT POWER IN CASES NOT COVERED BY ORDER 39 - Injunction cannot be granted restraining a person from initiating proceedings in courts of sub-ordinate or superior jurisdiction - Expression “injunction” is not qualified by an adjective – it would comprehend both interim and perpetual injunction

       -as held in Cotton Corporation of India v. United Industrial Bank, AIR 1983 SC 1272, but while excercising this power, the Court should not overlook the statutory provisions which inhibit such injunctions. Inherent powers cannot be invoked to nullify or stultify a statutory provision.

        – the Legislature manifestly expressed its mind by enacting Section 41(b) in such clear and unambiguous language that an injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person, the language takes care of injunction acting in personam, from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not subordinate to that from which injunction is sought. Section 41(b) denies to the court the jurisdiction to grant an injunction restraining any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceedings in a court which is not subordinate to the court from which the injunction is sought . In other words, the court can still grant an injunction restraining a person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court which is subordinate to the court from which the injunction is sought. As a necessary corollary, it would follow that the court is precluded from granting an injunction restraining any person from instituing or prosecuting any proceeding in a court of coordinate or superior jurisdiction. This change in language deliberately adopted by the Legislature after taking note of judicial vacillation has to be given full effect, as held in Cotton Corporation of India v. United Industrial Bank Ltd., AIR 1983 SC 1272.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - An injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought (!) (!) (!) . - Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, applies to both interim and perpetual injunctions, as the term "injunction" is not qualified by any adjective (!) (!) . - The inherent powers of the court under Order 39 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked to nullify or stultify statutory provisions under Section 41(b) (!) (!) (!) .

Can a court grant an injunction to restrain a person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not subordinate to the court from which the injunction is sought?

Do the provisions of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, address interim as well as perpetual injunctions?

Whether the inherent powers of a court under Order 39 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can override statutory provisions under Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?


Judgment

DESAI, J. :- First respondent United Industrial Bank Limited (Bank for short) having its registered office at 7, Red Cross Place, Calcutta filed Suit No. 1508 of 1981 on the original side of the Bombay High Court against the appellant - The Cotton Corporation of India Limited (Corporation for short) and one Tapan Kumar Ghosh, who at the relevant time was the Chief Branch Manager of the Worli Branch of the Bank and defendant No. 3-Bradbury Mills Limited, an existing Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 carrying on business at Maulana Azad Road, Jacob Circle, Bombay praying for a declaration that the acceptance and / or co-acceptance of the bill of exchange and / or hundies listed in Exhibit K by second defendant Tapan Kumar Ghosh for and on behalf of the Bank was null and void and not binding on the Bank and calling upon the Corporation to deliver up to the Court the disputed bills of exchange and / or hundies for the purpose of cancellation and for a direction cancelling the same. In this suit the Bank took out a notice of motion No. 1156 of 1981 seeking to restrain by an interim injunction the Corporation from enforcing any claim. whatever in any form or from relying on or ,giving effect to the bills of exchange or hundies involved in the dispute for the purpose of any suit or other proceedings including winding up proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956. and/or the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 against the Bank. Notice of motion also included a prayer for an interim injunction restraining the defendants in any manner whatsoever either endorsing or negotiating or transferring the said bills of exchange or hundies and for appointment of a receiver to take custody of the bills of exchange and hundies listed in Exh. K. An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted as prayed for. When the notice of motion came tip for hearing, the learned Judge made the following order :

"...........Mr. Chagla confines prayer (a) only to the filing. of winding tip petition by Defendants Nos. 1 and 3. He presses prayer (b) in full. Notice of motion as against the Defendant No. 1 dismissed. The Notice of Motion made absolute in terms of prayer (a) in so far winding or is concerned as against the defendant No. 3. so far as prayer (b) is concerned, the bills are in the possession of the Ist Defendant and there is no question of other defendants negotiating the same.

Notice of Motion dismissed as regards prayer (b) also against Defendants 2 and 3 ..........."

2. The Bank having been dissatisfied with the rejection of the Notice of Motion against the Corporation preferred Appeal from an order No. 527 of 1981. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed the appeal and issued interim injunction restraining the Corporation from presenting a winding up petition, the order being in the same terms as made against the 3rd defendant by the learned single Judge. The correctness and validity of this order is impugned in this appeal.

3. As the suit is pending awaiting adjudication on merits, every attempt would be made by us to avoid any expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. The few facts which we propose to set out are for the purpose of understanding and appreciating the contention only, the correctness or otherwise of the allegation of facts being immaterial for the present purpose.

4. The Corporation is engaged in the business of purchasing and selling cotton to textile mills in India. The policy of the Corporation appears to be to sell cotton against cash payment but in some cases to accommodate the textile mills the sale is effected on credit against acceptance of usance bills co-accepted by the bankers of the textile mills guaranteeing payment on due dates. 3rd defendant Bradbury Mills Limited is alleged to have purchased cotton of the aggregate value of Rupees 45,75,000/- and in payment of the price issued 16 usance bills. The 3rd defendant by its letter dated May 21, 1981 had informed the Corporation that the Bank ha


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top