Rajasthan High Court
Rna Resources Group Ltd vs M/S Ratan Textiles on 22 April, 2022
Bench: Prakash Gupta, Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 560/2021
1. RNA Resources Group Ltd., Landmark (Baby Shop Concept),
25th Floor, Landmark Tower, Dubai Marina, United Arab
Emirates, P.O. Box No. 25030, through Its Authorised
Signatory Baljit Talwar.
2. CEO Mr. Richard Collins, RNA Resources Group Ltd., Landmark
(Baby Shop Concept), 25th Floor, Landmark Tower, Dubai
Marina, United Arab Emirates, P.O. Box No. 25030
3. CFO Mr. Kutub Palasiya, RNA Resources Group Ltd., Landmark
(Baby Shop Concept), 25th Floor, Landmark Tower, Dubai
Marina, United Arab Emirates, P.O. Box No. 25030
4. Manager Forensic Audit, Mr. Salman Sheikh, RNA Resources
Group Ltd., Landmark (Baby Shop Concept), 25th Floor,
Landmark Tower, Dubai Marina, United Arab Emirates, P.O. Box
No. 25030
----Appellants/Defendants
Versus
M/s Ratan Textiles, A Registered Partner Ship Firm having its
Registered Office at F-199, EPIP, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur
302022 (India) through authorised representative cum partner Sunit
K. Jain.
----Respondent/Plaintiff
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vagish Kumar Singh, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. JP Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Suruchi Kasliwal, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment
22/04/2022
This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellants-
defendants (for short, 'the defendants') against the order dated
22.2.2021 passed by Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-
II (for short, 'the trial court'), whereby the application for
temporary injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short,
(2 of 4) [CMA-560/2021]
'the plaintiff') under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC readwith Section
151 CPC has been allowed.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the defendants
that the defendants are foreign nationals and service upon them
was effected through E-mail. On 5.2.2021, counsel had appeared
on behalf of the defendants and sought time to file reply of the
temporary injunction application and the matter was posted for
9.2.2021. On 9.2.2021, neither an opportunity was granted by
the trial court to file reply nor the opportunity to file reply was
closed. He further submits that in compliance of the order dated
21.1.2022 passed by this Court, he filed an affidavit to the effect
that on 9.2.2021 he requested the trial court to grant time to file
written statement as also the reply to the temporary injunction
application, but the trial court refused to grant time. He further
submits that money suit was filed against the defendants and the
trial court has grossly erred in granting injunction under Order 39
Rule 1 and 2 CPC, whereas no irreparable loss is caused. Thus,
application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was not maintainable
and no such relief could be granted under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2
CPC. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set-
aside.
On the other hand, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for
the plaintiff has opposed the same and submits that the impugned
order passed by the trial court is just and proper, with which no
interference is required by this Court.
Heard. Considered.
From the material on record, it is revealed that the
service was effected on the defendants through E-mail and on
5.2.2021 time was sought on their behalf to file reply of the
(3 of 4) [CMA-560/2021]
temporary injunction application. Accordingly, the matter was
posted for 9.2.2021. Thus, only one opportunity was granted to
file reply and thereafter without giving further opportunity to file
reply and / or without closing the opportunity to file reply,
arguments were heard and vide order dated 22.2.2021,
application for temporary injunction has been allowed. Learned
counsel for the defendants has also filed his affidavit in this regard
that on 9.2.2021 he requested the trial court to grant time to file
written statement as also the reply to the temporary injunction
application, but the trial court refused to grant time. It is an
admitted fact that the defendants are carrying their business in
Dubai Marina, United Arab Emirates. Thus, the order of the trial
court is found to be arbitrary as the same has been passed
without giving ample opportunity to them to file reply.
Having regard to the submissions made by learned
counsel for the defendants and for the afore-stated reasons, the
appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 22.2.2021 passed by
the trial court is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the trial
court with a direction to decide the application for temporary
injunction filed by the plaintiff afresh in accordance with law. The
defendants will be free to file reply to the temporary injunction
application within three weeks from today and thereafter the trial
court shall decide the temporary injunction application
expeditiously, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial
court on 23.5.2022.
(4 of 4) [CMA-560/2021]
Consequent upon the disposal of the appeal, stay
application and pending applications, if any also stands disposed
of accordingly.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J (PRAKASH GUPTA),J
DK
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
