M/S.Aishwarya Feeds vs M/S.Vinayaga Capitals
2021 Latest Caselaw 25023 Mad

                                                                      CMA No.3511 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 20.12.2021

                                                    CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

                                             C.M.A.No.3511 of 2021
                                                      and
                                             C.M.P.No.20350 of 2021

                     1.M/s.Aishwarya Feeds,
                       A Partnership Firm,
                       Rep. By its Partners,
                       R.Gunasekaran and N.Shanthi
                       No.4/132, 4th Street, K.M.Mohanur Road,
                       Vagurampatti, Sanyasikaradu Post,
                       Namakkal District.

                     2.R.Gunasekaran

                     3.G.Shanthi                                      ... Appellants


                                                       Vs

                     M/s.Vinayaga Capitals,
                     A Partnership Firm Registered
                     Under the Indian Partnership Act,
                     Rep. By its Managing Partner R.P.Rajendran
                     No.169C, Thuraiyur Main Road,
                     Namakkal.                                        ... Respondent




                     1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    CMA No.3511 of 2021

                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r)
                     read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to
                     allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, by setting aside, the docket order
                     dated 29.11.2021, passed in I.A.No.5 of 2021 in O.S.No.274 of 2021, on the
                     file of the Sessions Judge/ Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST
                     (PoA) Act, Namakkal.
                                           For Appellants      : Mr.Jagadish
                                                                 for Mr.S.Senthil

                                           For Respondent      : Mr.Rajarajan

                                                        *********

                                                    JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is against the order granting an

order of interim injunction, restraining the defendants in the suit, from

alienating or encumbering their immovable properties.

2. The plaintiff sued for recovery of a sum of Rs.85,00,000/- with

subsequent interest. The plaintiff sought for an injunction restraining the

defendants from alienating the properties on the ground that the defendants

are attempting to alienate the properties with a view to delay or defeat the

claim of the creditors.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.3511 of 2021

3. The injunction sought for would fall within clause (b) of Rule 1

of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court initially

ordered notice and that order was challenged in Revision before this Court.

I had by order dated 23.11.2021, directed the trial Court to re-examine the

prmia facie case, in the light of the claim made. Thereafter the trial Court

on, 29.11.2021, had granted an interim injunction. Now, it is the turn of the

respondents/ defendants to come up with an appeal.

4. Mr.C.Jagadish, learned counsel appearing for the appellant

would submit that he is ready to furnish immovable property security for the

value of the suit, to the satisfaction of the trial Court or he would even

deposit the entire suit claim before the trial Court as security, since the

property now subject matter of injunction application, is already mortgaged

with the Bank and because of the injunction order, the Bank is threatening

to recall the loan.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.3511 of 2021

5. Though Mr.Rajarajan, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent would have some reservations on the ground that there are other

suits pending between the parties, I do not think, I can take into account the

pendency of other suits. Injunction was sought for only to secure the suit

claim and if the appellants/ defendants in the suit furnish security for the

suit claim or deposit the suit claim, there will be no justification to continue

the injunction.

6. In view of the above, the following order is passed:

The appellants will be at liberty to furnish immovable property security to the satisfaction of the trial Court for the suit claim or they will deposit the entire suit claim before the trial Court. On either of these two alternatives happening ie., the trial Court accepting the security offered by the appellants herein or on the appellants depositing the entire suit claim of Rs.85,00,000/- to the credit of the suit, the injunction order will stand vacated. The injunction order will be in force till such time.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.3511 of 2021

7. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above

observations. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous

petition is closed.

20.12.2021 Index: No Speaking order dsa

To The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Namakkal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No.3511 of 2021

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

dsa

CMA No.3511 of 2021

20.12.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis