Allahabad High Court
Sri Anil Kumar Vaswani vs Sandeep Batra And 3 Others on 5 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:19676
Court No. - 1
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 127 of 2024
Appellant :- Sri Anil Kumar Vaswani
Respondent :- Sandeep Batra And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Anubhav Singh
Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J.
1. Heard Mr. Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Anubhav Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated January 8, 2024 passed by the District Judge/Presiding Officer, Commercial Court No.1, Gautam Budh Nagar wherein learned District Judge has passed an order restraining the defendants or their agents till further orders, in relation to the suit property, from creating any third party right and also restraining the defendants from illegally evicting the plaintiff/respondent No.1 from the suit property.
3. Mr. Goyal has submitted that the impugned order has been passed in gross disregard of the law established by the Supreme Court in relation to grant of ad-interim orders when such orders could not have been passed even in the final relief. He submits that the entire alleged transactions between the respondent No.1 herein and the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are without any authority given by the respondent No.2 being the Company wherein the appellant is a Director along with the respondent Nos.3 and 4. He further submits that the alleged 'deal note' and 'joint development agreement' clearly indicate that the Company has not signed and the signature is only that of the respondent No.3, i.e., Sri Krishan Chawla, one of the Directors of the Company.
4. Upon perusal of the documents annexed to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application, it is clear that the plaint did not contain any Board resolution whereby power was given to the respondent No.3 to enter into the alleged 'deal note'. Furthermore, the impugned order has provided for a blanket restraining order upon the defendants.
5. It has also been submitted by Mr. Goyal that objections have been filed to the stay application before the Commercial Court and also an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. has been filed but the date for hearing of the same has been fixed for February 26, 2024.
6. Mr. Goyal has also submitted that the impugned order continues till date and grave prejudice is caused to the Company due to the same.
7. In my view, the ad-interim order that was passed, should have been passed for a limited period only and should not have been for an indefinite period as is clear from the impugned order. Furthermore, once an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. has been filed, the same should have been heard by the Commercial Court as the same relates to the very root of the jurisdiction of the Court.
8. Accordingly, I modify the order dated January 8, 2024 to the extent that the ad-interim order/impugned order shall continue only till February 15, 2024. The Commercial Court is directed to hear out the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein after considering the objections filed by the appellant herein within a period of 10 days from date. Furthermore, the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. should be heard and decided by the Court expeditiously.
9. I make it clear that the Commercial Court shall not extend the ad-interim order without passing a reasoned order after taking into consideration the objections filed by the appellant herein.
10. As nothing remains in this appeal and the stay application, the same are disposed of with the directions given above.
11. All parties and the Commercial Court to act on a server copy of this order.
12. Urgent certified copy of the order may be made available to the appellant herein.
Order Date :- 5.1.2024
Rakesh
(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)
