Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2010 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 213 - HC - Companies LawWhether the plaintiffs were entitled for interim-relief of injunction against the defendants as prayed? Whether the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were entitled for relief of allowing execution and acting upon the Consent Award between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3.? Held that:- It is rightly argued on behalf of the plaintiffs as well as defendant No. 2 company that the application taken out by the defendant No. 4 was not within the purview of Order 39 rule 1(a). In any case, that application could not have been filed by the defendant No. 4 in the face of order passed by this Court dated 26-3-2003 restraining them from claiming any right in respect of the disputed shares. If the relief claimed by the defendant No. 4 were to be granted, it would result in overlooking the injunction operating against them in terms of order dated 26-3-2003. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, the relief as claimed by the defendant No. 4 cannot be countenanced. The Learned Single Judge in our opinion has rightly considered this material aspect to reject the claim of the defendant No. 4 and hold that the defendant No. 4 has no right to represent. Further, the subject-matter of two suits pending in this Court were not property of defendant No. 2 and interim-relief can be considered only in aid of and to preserve the subject-matter of the suit. For that reason, even the conclusion reached by the Learned Single Judge for dismissing the Notice of Motion taken out by defendant No. 4 merits no interference.
|