Calcutta High Court
Jcc India Private Limited And Anr vs Til Limited on 18 June, 2025
OCD-5
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA No. GA-COM/1/2025
In CS-COM/57/2025
JCC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR
VS
TIL LIMITED
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Date : June 18, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. R. L. Mitra, Adv.
Mrs. Priyanka Dhar, Adv.
... for the plaintiffs
1.
Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, learned Advocate, is appearing for the
plaintiffs.
2. The plaintiffs have filed the present application being GA-
COM/1/2025 praying for judgment upon admission and interim
order. At present, the plaintiffs are only praying for ad interim
injunction.
3. Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the defendant has issued a
work order to the plaintiffs and accordingly, the plaintiffs have
executed the work order and subsequently, as per the invoices raised
by the plaintiffs, the defendant has issued five post-dated cheques of
The South Indian Bank Limited for a total sum of Rs.55,00,000/- by
a communication dated 16th March, 2022. Out of the five cheques,
one cheque being cheque no.002486 for Rs.15,00,000/- was
returned to the defendant as the defendant had transferred the said
amount in the account of the plaintiffs through RTGS. As regard the
second cheque dated 30th April, 2022, the plaintiff has presented the
same for encashment but the same was dishonoured. Subsequently,
the plaintiffs have initiated a case under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act before the appropriate Court of law and
the defendant has paid the said cheque amount. Now, the remaining
three cheques of Rs.10,00,000/- each, the plaintiffs have presented
the same for encashment but the same were dishonoured. After
dishonour of the cheques, the plaintiffs have informed the same to
the defendant and requested for payment of remaining amount of
Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest but the defendant has not paid
the said amount.
4. Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs have initiated
pre-institution meditation process but in spite of receipt of notice,
the defendant has not come forward for settlement of the issue and
accordingly, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit along with the
instant application.
5. Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that it is admitted by the
defendant that a principal amount of Rs.30,00,000/- is due to be
paid by the defendant to the plaintiff but in spite of the same, the
defendant failed to pay the same. Counsel for the plaintiffs further
submits that the plaintiffs came to know that there are several dues
pending against several parties as well as against the bank and in
one claim, the Bank of India has initiated a proceeding under Section
7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and during the pendency of
the said proceeding, the defendant has settled the dispute with the
Bank of India.
6. Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that there is every chance that the
defendant will siphon off the amount without paying the due amount
to the plaintiff and if at this stage, an ad interim order is not passed
and in case, the plaintiffs will get a decree, the same will only a paper
decree and the plaintiffs will not be in a position to execute the
decree.
7. Considered the submission made by the counsel for the plaintiffs.
Perused the materials on record.
8. As per the record, the defendant has issued work order and
accordingly, the plaintiffs have executed the work order and upon
completion of the work order, the defendant has issued cheques for a
total sum of Rs.55,00,000/- and out of the said sum, only
Rs.25,00,000/- has been paid by the defendant and the remaining
amount of Rs.30,00,000/- is due. The defendant has issued the
cheques but the same were dishonoured. In spite of requests, the
defendant has not paid the amount. It is also found that the Bank of
India has initiated a proceeding under Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code and during the pendency of the said proceeding, the defendant
has settled the issues with the Bank of India.
9. Considering the above, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have made
out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience and
inconvenience is in favour of the plaintiffs. This Court also finds that
if at this stage, an ad interim order is not granted, the plaintiffs will
suffer irreparable loss and injury.
10. Accordingly, an ad interim order of injunction in terms of prayer (b) of
the application is granted till 16th July, 2025.
11. The plaintiffs are directed to serve the copy of the plaint and
interlocutory application along with documents to the defendant
forthwith and to file affidavit of service on the returnable date.
12. List the matter on 16th July, 2025.
(KRISHNA RAO, J.)
RS
