Karnataka High Court
Mrs Thare Peethambaram vs Mr P.Hari Shankar on 18 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15200
MFA NO.2249 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2249 OF 2024 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. THARE PEETHAMBARAM
W/O LATE PEETHAMBARAM PARTHASARATHY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
HAVING RESIDENCE AT NO.45,
9TH CROSS, PARIMALANAGAR,
NANDHINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
2. MR. KRISHNARJUN PEETHAMBARAM
S/O LATE PEETHAMBARAM PARTHASARATHY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
HAVING RESIDENCE AT NO.45,
9TH CROSS, PARIMALANAGAR,
NANDHINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
Digitally ...APPELLANTS
signed by BS
RAVIKUMAR (BY SRI. NARENDRA H.N., ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. MR. P. HARI SHANKAR
S/O LATE PEETHAMBARAM PARTHASARATHY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
DIRECTOR
M/S. E. PARISARAA PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING RESIDENCE AT
NO.SM3, 2ND CROSS,
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
BENGALURU - 560 098.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15200
MFA NO.2249 OF 2024
2. E-PARISARAA PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED
UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.B, 41/1, 3RD STAGE,
MARUTHI NAGAR, PEENYA
BENGALURU - 560 058.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.G. KOUSHIK, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER XLIII RULE 1(R) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH, 2024 PASSED IN
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.2279 OF 2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
WHEREBY EX-PARTE AD-INTERIM ORDER OF TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION HAS BEEN GRANTED IN RESPECT OF THE RELIEF
SOUGHT IN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 1 AND 2
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1/PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER
XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the defendants 1 and 2 in Original
Suit No.2279 of 2024 on the file of the XXXV Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru challenging the ex-parte
order of interim injunction restraining the defendants from
accessing the company's bank account and passing any
resolution in their favour.
NC: 2024:KHC:15200
MFA NO.2249 OF 2024
2. The dispute between the plaintiff and defendants
appears to be an attempt at one upmanship over the
administration of the defendant No.3. The suit was filed by the
plaintiff for the following relief:
"a. Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant
Nos.1 and 2 from in any manner getting access to
the company bank account and passing any
resolution in their favour.
b. Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant
Nos.1 and 2 from in any manner being appointed
as the authorised signatory to carry out Company
affairs and/or submitting any officials forms,
returns and representations before any
Government Departments or carry out any other
statutory companies as per law on behalf of the
Company."
3. An application for interim injunction was filed by the
plaintiff virtually seeking the main relief by way of an interim
injunction. The Trial Court, in terms of its order dated 26th
March, 2024 passed an ex-parte order restraining the
defendants from gaining access to the Company's bank
account and passing any resolution in their favour till the next
date of hearing. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
defendants 1 and 2 are before this Court in this appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:15200
MFA NO.2249 OF 2024
4. The learned counsel appearing for defendants 1 and
2 contended that the Trial Court has not recorded any reasons
for granting an ex-parte order. He further contends that the
defendants 1 and 2 are Directors of the defendant No.3 and
the suit filed against them was clearly not maintainable in
view of the express provisions contained in Section 241 and
242 of the Companies Act, 2013. He submits that the
impugned order has far reaching consequences in as much as
the Directors of a Company are restrained from operating the
bank account and from even passing resolutions to carry on
the day to day activities in the Company.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1/plaintiff submits that the case before the Trial Court is
listed on 25th April, 2024 and that the plaintiff would without
any hesitation address his arguments on the applications. He
therefore, prayed that the parties be relegated to the Trial
Court
6. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/defendants 1 and 2 submits that the defendants too
NC: 2024:KHC:15200
MFA NO.2249 OF 2024
would file objections to the applications on the said date and
also address arguments.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, this Court felt it appropriate to direct the Trial Court
to permit the defendants to file objections on the applications
filed by the plaintiff and to hear the applications filed by the
plaintiff on 25th April, 2024 and thereafter, pass suitable
orders within a period of thirty days from the date of
conclusion of the hearing. Accordingly, this Miscellaneous
First Appeal is disposed of.
All contentions are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ARK
