Calcutta High Court
Anvil Ore India Private Limited vs Shree Vaishnavi Ispat Limited on 31 July, 2025
Author: Arindam Mukherjee
Bench: Arindam Mukherjee
OD-6 ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IA NO: GA/1/2024
IN
CS/178/2024
ANVIL ORE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
VS
SHREE VAISHNAVI ISPAT LIMITED
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Date: 31st July, 2025.
APPEARANCE:
Mr. Debdut Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty, Adv.
For plaintiff
Mr. Abir Lal Ghosh, Adv.
For defendant
THE COURT: In a suit for recovery of money lent and advanced wherein
the outstanding, according to the plaintiff, is Rs. 25,88,22,596/-. The plaintiff
has taken out this application for a direction upon the defendant to furnish
security under the provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 ( in short CPC) and has also prayed for attachment before
judgment and an order of injunction under the provisions of Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
The plaintiff is seeking a restraint order on the defendant in selling out
six immovable properties which are all situated in the district of Paschim
Burdwan, West Bengal, out side the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff has
given the particulars of the properties in the application and has also provided
a tentative value of the same. The plaintiff says that the claim of the plaintiff is
even higher than the value which may be available on sale of such immovable
properties.
After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, I find
that there is no prima facie dispute about the defendant receiving the money
from the plaintiff which was en routed through bank transaction either in the
form of transfer or through instruments.
The defendant carries out commercial activities and, as such, the
presumption in ordinary course is that the defendant has used and utilised the
money for its business purpose which further leads to an inference that the
defendant has derived benefit from out of the use of such money received from
the plaintiff. The defendant has also admitted in its affidavit that the original
title deed of the said six properties which comprise the fixed assets of the
defendant company are lying with the plaintiff. Although, no case of equitable
mortgage has been made out by the plaintiff or the defendant but the fact
remains that with the original title deeds being lying with the plaintiff it may
not be impossible but a very difficult task on the part of the defendant in
selling out such immovable properties.
A doubt, however, continues to unravel this view. If the defendant by
concealing the fact that the original deeds are lying with the plaintiff is able to
dispose of the immovable properties there will be multiplicity of judicial
proceedings as the buyer may put forth the defendants of being a bona fide
purchaser for value without notice, the plaintiff has been able to make out a
prima facie case. The balance of convenience and inconvenience is in favour of
the plaintiff. In this background by applying the ratio laid down in Rahul S.
Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418, after
considering the ratio laid down in Sunil Kakrania & Ors. Vs. M/s. Saltee
Infrastructure Limited & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 Cal. 260, Kohinoor Steel
Private Limited Vs. Pravesh Chandra Kapoor reported in AIR 2011 Cal. 29 as
also the judgment reported in 2019 (4) CHN 412 (Harleen Jairath Vs. Prabha
Surana And Anr.) and another judgment reported in AIR 2023 Cal 344 (Aei
Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. And Others Vs. Linear Merchants Pvt. Ltd. And
Another) I find that the plaintiff is entitled to an order of injunction in respect
of six immovable properties as attachment before judgment. The defendant, its
men, servants, agent and/or assigns are, therefore, restrained by an order of
injunction from dealing with, disposing of, alienating and/or creating any third
party interest or from changing the nature and character of the immovable
properties, the particulars whereof are set out in the schedule annexed at
pages 14 to 16 of this application till disposal of the suit.
Nothing further remains to be adjudicated in this application.
The application is, accordingly, disposed of.
(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)
Sb/
