Glocal Healthcare Systems Pvt Ltd vs Major Paresh Singhal(Retd)
2021 Latest Caselaw 2071 Kant

                           1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2021

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

              M.F.A.No.1857 OF 2021(CPC)
BETWEEN

GLOCAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS PVT LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ECOSPACE BUSINESS PARK
ACTION AREA-II, BLOCK NO.3B-207
NEWTOWN, KOLKATA-700156
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
MR GAUTAM CHOWDHURY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O MR LATE SHRI PRANOB KRISHNA CHOWDHURY
                                            ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI.LOMESH KIRAN, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    MAJOR PARESH SINGHAL(RETD)
      S/O PREM PRAKASH SINGHAL
      AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
      R/A E-203, JALAVAYU TOWER
      NEW TOWN
      KOLKATA-700156

2.    ELEVAR ADVISORS PVT LTD(ELEVAR EQUITY)
      NO.21/8, OFF M G ROAD
      CRAIG PARK LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560001

3.    SEQUOIA CAPITAL INDIA LLP
      DIVYASRE TECHNOPOLIS
      6TH FLOOR, EAST WING BLOCK-B
      OFF HAL AIRPORT ROAD
      YEMALUR, BENGALURU-560037
                                  2



4.     DR SYED SABAHAT AZIM
       R/A IDEAL VILLA
       VILLA NO.98, PLOT NO.98
       KOCHPUKUR, RAJARHAT
       KOLKATA-700156
       WEST BENGAL

5.     MRS RICHA SANA AZIM
       R/A IDEAL VILLA
       VILLA NO.98, PLOT NO.98
       KOCHOPUKUR
       RAJARHAT, KOLKATA-700156
       WEST BENGAL

6.      MAJOR ASHUTOSH SHRIVASTAVA(RETD)
       R/A C-4/45, VISHESH KHAND
       GOMTI NAGAR
       LUCKNOW-226010

7.     MR GAUTAM CHAOWDHARY
       R/A 31/N, BLOCK B
       NEW ALIPORE, KOLKATA-700053

8.     MELEVEETIL DAMODARAN
       R/A D-8/3, D BLOCK
       VASANT VIHAR
       NEW DELHI-110057

9.     SIDBI TRUSTEE COMPANY LTD
       A/C SAMRIDHI FUND
       GROUND FLOOR
       MSME DEVELOPMENT CENTER
       C-11, G BLOCK
       BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX
       BANDRA(E), MUMBAI-400051

10 .   VISHAL UPADHYAYA
       R/A A-32, SECTOR 65
       NOIDA, GAUTAM BUDDH NAGAR
       UTTAR PRADESH-201301
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.CHINTHAN CHINNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1
   SRI. M.V. CHANDRASHEKHARA REDDY, ADV. FOR R-6
   NOTICE TO R-2 , R-3, R-4, R-5, R-7 R-8, R9 & R-10 D/W)
                                3




      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER RULE 1(r) OF CPC,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD: 30.03.2021
PASSED ON IA NO. I IN O.S.NO. 25519/2021, PASSED BY THE LXII-
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT
(CCH-73), BENGALURU AND ETC.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                          JUDGMENT

This appeal by the defendant No.1 in the suit in

O.S.No.25519/2021 filed by the respondent No.1 - plaintiff on

the file of LXXII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall

Unit, Bengaluru (for short 'the trial court'), is directed against

the impugned order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the trial court

on I.A.1/2021 filed by respondent No.1 - plaintiff under Order

39 Rules 1, 2 and 10 r/w Sections 94 and 151 CPC; by the

impugned order, the trial court directed all parties to maintain

status-quo in respect of the suit schedule properties.

2. Heard Sri.Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel

appearing on behalf of Sri.Lomesh Kiran for the appellant and

Sri.Chintan Chinnappa, learned counsel for respondent No.1

and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions

urged in the memorandum of appeal and the documents and

citations relied upon by the appellant, learned senior counsel

for the appellant submitted that apart from various serious

infirmities contained in the impugned order, the ex-parte

interim order of status-quo passed by the trial court is vitiated

on account of being unreasoned, non-speaking and cryptic

order which has been passed without any application of mind

and in contravention of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC and as such, the

impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground

alone. In support of his contentions, reliance is placed on the

following decisions:-

(i) Shivkumar Chadha vs. MCD - (1993) 3 SCC 161;

(ii) Jayaram & Anr. vs. Dr.Rajashekar & Others - MFA No.6227/2016 Dated 13.12.2019;

(iii) Beau Jhelum Traders & Anr. vs. Ramesh K.R. & Others - MFA No.5034/2014 Dated 20.08.2014;

(iv) Vendanth Fashions Pvt. Ltd., vs. Rajul Devi - (2014) SCC Online KAR 7191;

(v) R.K.Jain vs. PG Chacko - (2013) SCC Online KAR 10168;

(vi) Vemula Rajkumar vs. Sampath Kumar - CRP No.1044, 970 and 971/2020 Dated 28.12.2020;

(vii) N.Ramaiah vs. S.Nagaraj - ILR 2001 KAR 3466;

(viii) Smitha vs. Srinivas - MFA No.4890/2015 Dated 24.07.2015.

(ix) Vice President vs. S.K.R Balakrishnan - (2000) SCC Online MAD 416;

(x) Shashi Prakash Khemka vs. NEPC Micon - (2019) 18 SCC 569;

(xi) Wilfred D'Souza vs. Lotus Shopping Centre - MFA No.2573/2015 Dated 18.06.2015.

(xii) SAS Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., vs. Surya Constructions - (2018) SCC Online Del 11909;

(xiii) Vikaram Jairath vs. Middleton Hotels Pvt. Ltd., - 2019 SCC Online Cal 6663;

(xiv) Parenteral Drugs (India) Ltd., vs. Jagadish Mangal HUF & Others - (2020) 2 MPLJ 623;

(xv) Chiranjeevi Rathnam vs. Ramesh - 2017 SCC Online Mad 23049;

(xvi) Shankar Assana Gaddam vs. Achanak Associates Realtors Pvt. Ltd., - (2020) SCC Online Bom 1903;

(xvii) Delhi & District Cricket Association vs. Sudhir Kumar Agarwal - 2020 SCC Online Del 1223;

(xviii) Cotton Corporation of India Ltd., vs. United Industrial Bank Ltd., - (1993) 4 SCC 625;

(xix) Shivkumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi - (1993) 3 SCC 161;

(xx) Patel Enterprises vs. M.P.Ahuja - ILR 1992 KAR 3772;

(xxi) Bharath Coking Coal Ltd., vs. Indian Newspaper Society - (2011) 14 SCC 140;

(xxii) P.Ranganathan vs. Sai Jagannathan - (1995) SCC Online Mad 341;

(xxiii) Sajli Kishku vs. Talamoyee Kishku & Others - MANU/WB/2023/2019;

(xxiv) Sky Travels vs. Hari Shankar Sharma - (2004) 2 CLJ (Cal) 239;

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 -

plaintiff, in addition to supporting the impugned order passed

by the trial court and referring to the citations produced by

him, submits that the impugned order passed by the trial court

directing all parties to maintain status-quo does not warrant

interference by this Court in the present appeal and that the

same is liable to be dismissed.

In support of his contentions, reliance is placed on the

following decisions:-

(i) Sm.Muktakesi Dawn & Others vs. Haripada Mazumdar & Anr. - AIR 1988 Cal 25;

(ii) Bhasker Gayen & Others vs. Subhadit Mullick & Others - (2012) SCC Online Cal 2246;

(iii) NEPC Micon Ltd., vs. Magma Leasing Ltd., & Anr. - (1999) SCC Online Cal 133;

(iv) G.S.Prasanna Kumar vs. R.S.Shekarappa - MFA No.5998/2015 Dated 20.08.2015;

(v) Prakash Roadlines vs. Vijayakumar Narang -(1995) 84 COMPCAS 782 (KAR);

(vi) Jaikumar Arya vs. Chaya Devi - MANU/DE/3486/2017.

5. The material on record indicates that the application

I.A.1/2021 filed by the respondent No.1 - plaintiff in the suit

before the trial court is still pending consideration and that the

same has not been disposed of so far. It is also seen that on

17.04.2021, the trial court extended the interim order of status-

quo and posted the matter to 03.06.2021.

6. Though several contentions have been urged by both

sides in respect of their respective claims, a perusal of the

impugned order of status-quo passed by the trial court will

clearly indicate that the same is a cryptic, bald, laconic,

unreasoned and non-speaking order which is bereft of any

reasons and without any application of mind; further, the

impugned order directing the parties to maintain status-quo in

respect of the suit schedule properties also ignores the fact

that in the plaint or the application I.A.1/2021 filed in the suit,

no schedule of properties as required in law has been stated /

described by the plaintiff so as to enable passing of an order

in respect of suit schedule properties; the impugned ex-parte

order of status-quo passed by the trial court is contrary not

only to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC but also to the decisions of the

Apex Court and this Court referred to supra and consequently,

the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground

alone. Further, having regard to the facts and circumstances

of the instant case, the decisions relied upon by the

respondent No.1 - plaintiff which were rendered in the

peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in the said cases

are not applicable to the case on hand.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in

particular the undisputed fact that the impugned order arises

out of I.A.1/2021 which is still pending consideration before

the trial court, without expressing any opinion on the merits /

demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate

to set aside the impugned order and direct the trial court to

consider and dispose of the application I.A.1/2021 filed by the

respondent No.1 - plaintiff in accordance with law as

expeditiously as possible within a stipulated timeframe.

8. In the result, I pass the following:-

ORDER

(i) Appeal is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned order of status-quo dated 30.03.2021

passed by the trial court on I.A.1/2021 filed by the respondent

No.1 - plaintiff in O.S.No.25519/2021 as well as the

subsequent order dated 17.04.2021 passed by the trial court

extending the earlier interim order of status-quo are hereby set

aside.

(iii) The trial court is directed to consider and dispose of

I.A.1/2021 filed by the respondent No.1 - plaintiff on merits

and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and

at any rate, on or before 17.06.2021.

(iv) No opinion is expressed on the merits / demerits of

the rival contentions and the same are hereby kept / left open

to be decided by the trial court without being influenced by the

observations / findings recorded in the impugned order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Srl.