9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in accordance with law one way or the other then the parties to the Lis can always work out their rights by taking recourse to legal remedies available to them for pursuing their grievance to higher fora either in appeal or revision, as the case may be, and may also prosecute the contempt proceedings arising out of the main case, if need arises - It is always in the larger interest of the parties to the Lis to get the main case (Lis) decided first on its merits as far as possible rather than to pursue their off-shoot proceedings on merits by keeping the main case undecided. It is more so when any decision rendered in the main case has a bearing over the pending off-shoot proceedings. The Defendant in such case has a right to point out in the Notice of Motion, that the Plaintiff has neither any prima facie case in their favour nor there is any likelihood of Plaintiff to suffer any irreparable loss/injury in relation to subject matter of the suit, if injunction is declined to the Plaintiff and that no balance of convenience lies in the Plaintiff's favour and, therefore, the Court should not have granted ex parte injunction to the Plaintiff and even if it has granted then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssociates and agents) be restrained, by order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court, from in any manner further issuing any defamatory letters, notices, emails, etc., in connection with and/or pertaining to and/or relating to the Plaintiff, its senior officials and promoters; e. interim, ad-interim and ex-parte ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer (a) (b) and (d) above, for costs; g. for such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems appropriate in the nature and circumstances of the case. 6. The Respondent in the aforementioned pending civil suit filed notice of motion being Notice of Motion (L) No. 1553 of 2013 (renumbered as 488 of 2014) against the Appellants herein Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (in short the Code ) and sought ad-interim relief in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (d) as extracted above during the pendency of the Suit. 7. By interim order dated 06.08.2013, the Single Judge granted ex parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (a) to the Respondent. The Appellants herein on receiving the summons filed their detailed reply to the Notice of Motion on 21.08.2013 denying inter alia all the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and hence another notice of contempt be issued against the Appellants to show cause as to why they be not punished for having committed fresh contempt of order dated 06.08.2013. 13. The Single Judge, on perusal of the additional affidavit filed by the Respondent herein on 31.10.2014, directed issuance of notice to the Appellants to show cause as to why action under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act be not initiated against them for committing violation of orders dated 06.08.2013 and 26.02.2014. The notices were made returnable on 08.12.2014. The Single Judge also issued an order restraining the Appellants from issuing any defamatory letter, notice, e-mail, advertisement and publication of any nature in connection with the Respondent herein. This matter is also pending. 14. Felt aggrieved by these two interim orders, i.e., 26.02.2014 and 31.10.2014, the Appellants have filed these appeals by way of special leave before this Court. 15. We have heard Mr. P.V. Kapur, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent at considerable length. Both the learned Senior Counsel very ably argued the myriad legal issues ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation within 30 days from the date on which the ex parte injunction was granted. 19. It was not done by the Court may be due to myriad reasons despite the Appellants (Defendants) entering appearance as back as 21.08.2013 in the main suit and completing their pleadings on 05.09.2013. As a result, the ex parte ad-interim order dated 06.08.2013 remains in operation. 20. In our view, once the Notice of Motion is finally decided on merits in accordance with law one way or the other then the parties to the Lis can always work out their rights by taking recourse to legal remedies available to them for pursuing their grievance to higher fora either in appeal or revision, as the case may be, and may also prosecute the contempt proceedings arising out of the main case, if need arises. 21. In our considered opinion, It is always in the larger interest of the parties to the Lis to get the main case (Lis) decided first on its merits as far as possible rather than to pursue their off-shoot proceedings on merits by keeping the main case undecided. It is more so when any decision rendered in the main case has a bearing over the pending off-shoot proceedings. 22. In our view, the Defen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
