2010 (7) TMI 1161 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ad interim injunction against the Defendants.
2. Modification of ex-parte ad interim injunction.
3. Vacation of the ex-parte ad interim injunction.

Summary:

Ad interim injunction against the Defendants:
The Plaintiffs sought an ad interim injunction against the Defendants, alleging that the Defendants conspired and made unreasonable demands, including the partition of business and residential properties. The Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants used abusive language and demanded that Plaintiff No.2 surrender the property in dispute. The Defendants contested, stating that the Plaintiffs misrepresented their possession of the property and that the first floor was in Defendant No.2's possession. The court found that the Plaintiffs concealed material facts and misled the court, thus not entitled to the relief sought.

Modification of ex-parte ad interim injunction:
The Plaintiffs also sought modification of the ex-parte ad interim injunction granted on 17.05.2010. The court noted that the Plaintiffs were not in possession of the front portion of the first floor at the time of filing the suit and had misrepresented facts to obtain the injunction. The court emphasized the importance of full disclosure and bona fide conduct by the party seeking an injunction. The court vacated the interim order dated 17th May 2010, relating to property No.H-32, Kailash Colony, New Delhi.

Vacation of the ex-parte ad interim injunction:
The Defendants filed an application seeking the vacation of the ex-parte ad interim injunction. The court observed that the Defendants were in possession of the first floor and had been working with Plaintiff No.1 in the business. The court found that the Plaintiffs had not acted bona fide and had concealed material facts. The court concluded that the Defendants would suffer inconvenience if dislodged from the premises, and the Plaintiffs had an alternative vacant property (House No.H-28) for accommodating guests. The court vacated the interim order and clarified that the Defendants, who had started a separate business, should not interfere in Plaintiff No.1's business activities.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the applications, vacated the interim order concerning the property in dispute, and clarified the non-interference in Plaintiff No.1's business by the Defendants. The case was listed for further proceedings on 6th September 2010 before the Joint Registrar.