9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... training defendants 1 and 2 jointly or severally from taking possession of or interfering with the use of or exercising any right of lien, charge or from issuing notice in any form or from creating any kind of disturbance or from attaching otherwise or raising a claim in respect of certain capacitor banks systems allegedly supplied by the plaintiff and installed at various substations of Transmission Corporation for Andhra Pradesh (for short, 'APTRANSCO') and for award of the costs of the suit. In that suit, the plaintiff filed O.A. No. 806 of 2003 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an interim injunction along the same lines to enure during the suit. The suit was filed when defendant No. 1 issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rward its case or its defence before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 4. The learned single judge after hearing both sides vacated the interim order of injunction earlier granted. Thus, he allowed the application filed by the first defendant for vacating the injunction and dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff for interim injunction. The learned single judge essentially took the view that since the first defendant had initiated a proper proceeding for enforcement of its rights before a Tribunal exclusively competent to deal with such a claim, it was not for the Civil Court to intervene with an interim order of injunction as sought for by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the second defendant for the work and the plaintiff had prima facie secured the loan by hypothecation and a charge. An order has been claimed against the plaintiff before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in enforcement of its rights by the first defendant. The Division Bench did not ask itself the question whether it was open to it on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, to issue an order of injunction restraining one of the contracting parties from enforcing as against the other contracting party, the obligations arising out of that contract. The Division Bench also did not ask itself the question whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for the grant of what it called an interim mandatory injunction --- though it ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first defendant. That apart, to grant an injunction restraining the enforcement of orders passed by the Tribunal having jurisdiction to pass such orders cannot normally be granted unless it is a case of fraud or the existence of some such vitiating factor is established or prima facie made out. Even then, the order of injunction as now granted could be granted only in exceptional cases. 7. We had recently occasion to consider the scope of the raising of a counter claim before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in State Bank of India Vs. M/s Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. [2006 (10) SCALE 150]. It appears to us that the claims sought to be put forward by the plaintiff in the present suit is something that is really in the nature of a defence t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
