Dozco (India) Private Limited vs M/S. Gaurav Enterprises & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1645 Cal/2

ORDER SHEET
                                                                                   OCD-8

                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                           [COMMERCIAL DIVISION]

                               IA No. GA/1/2023
                                       In
                                 CS/105/2023
                        DOZCO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED
                                    VERSUS
                       M/S. GAURAV ENTERPRISES & ORS.

  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
  Date: 24th July, 2023.
                                                                               Appearance:
                                                                 Mr. Jaydip Kar, Sr. Adv.
                                                                 Mr. Debdeep Sinha, Adv.
                                                               For the plaintiff/petitioner.

              The Court:- This is an application, inter alia, for injunction,

appointment of a Special Officer and attachment before judgment.

              The plaintiff/petitioner says that pursuant to purchase orders being

placed   by   the   defendant/respondent   no.1   which   is     under     control     and

management of the defendant/respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, the plaintiff/petitioner

imported two bulldozers of special category and supplied the same to the

defendant/respondent no.1 at Navi Mumbai for execution of certain work thereat

by the defendant/respondent no.1.

The plaintiff/petitioner further says that after the bulldozers were

supplied, the Engineers from the plaintiff company went to the site where the

defendant/respondent no.1 was executing the work to install the same and make

them operational. The men, servants and employees of the defendant/respondent

no.1 were also given the basic training for the purpose of operating the two

bulldozers.

The plaintiff/petitioner further says that supply of the two bulldozers

will be, prima facie, evident from the purchase orders and the other documents

including transporter's receipt and delivery report apart from the fact that there

is also a commissioning report. The plaintiff/petitioner says that a sum of Rs.

3,86,85,875.84p comprising of Rs. 3,41,02,000/- being the price of the two

bulldozers and Rs. 45,83,875.84 for other outstanding invoices is due and

payable by the defendant/respondent nos. 1 to 4 to the plaintiff/petitioner.

The plaintiff/petitioner further says that the defendant/respondent

nos. 1 to 4 despite having received of the two bulldozers have failed and neglected

to pay the price and are now contending that the same were not supplied.

The plaintiff/petitioner also says that the defendant/respondent nos.

1 to 4 are trying to hand over the two bulldozers to the defendant/respondent

no.5 to further jeopardize the plaintiff/petitioner's interest.

The defendants/respondents remain unrepresented despite service.

The affidavit of service evincing receipt of application and notice of

motion filed in Court today is taken on record.

After hearing the plaintiff/petitioner and considering the materials

on record, I find that the plaintiff/petitioner has been able to make out a strong

prima facie case on the basis of the documents available on record. It is, prima

facie, found that the bulldozers were supplied. Since the defendants/respondents

do not appear despite service, the version of the defendants/respondents as to

payment of the price of the two bulldozers is not available. The balance of

convenience and inconvenience in the aforesaid facts and circumstances is in

favour of the plaintiff/petitioner and in favour of passing ad interim orders. The

order of injunction is also necessary to prevent further prejudice to the

plaintiff/petitioner's right and to prevent multiplicity of judicial proceedings

which is likely to occur if injunction is refused at this stage. Moreover, the

absence of the defendants/respondents makes the Court further apprehensive.

In the circumstances as aforesaid, let there be an ad interim order of

injunction restraining the defendants/respondents and each one of them, their

men, servants, agents and/or assigns from alienating and/or encumbering

and/or disposing or from creating any third party interest in respect of two

bulldozers the particulars whereof are provided in paragraph 11 of the

application being IA No. GA/1/2023. This ad interim order of injunction shall

continue till 31st August, 2023 or until further orders whichever is earlier.

Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the petition and the

plaint be served on the defendants/respondents even though the petition may

have been served.

Let this matter appear on 7th August, 2023. On the returnable date,

the defendants/respondents shall provide the particulars of the two bulldozers as

also about their whereabouts.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

snn