Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order dated 27th June 1996 passed by a motion judge of the Bombay High Court in Notice of Motion No.2867 of 1992 in Suit No.3050 of 1992. The appellant, M/s. Fleming Shaw & Co. Pvt. Ltd., was the original defendant No.3. The respondents included Commercial Union Assurance Company of Australia Ltd., Associated Marine Assurance Agents Pvt. Ltd., Insimpex Corporation, Reserve Bank of India, and British India Corporation Ltd. The motion judge directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000 either in the Bombay High Court or in the Kanpur Court. The appellant challenged this order. The Bombay High Court, upon perusal of the impugned order, found that the competent court, namely the Civil Judge at Kanpur, was already seized of the dispute between the parties. At the instance of defendant No.2 (who was the plaintiff in the Kanpur court), a temporary injunction had been granted against the appellant restraining it from remitting the disputed sum of Rs.7,91,214.38 out of India. The court observed that the motion judge's order directing deposit of Rs.5,00,000 was unsustainable on its face because the Kanpur court had already passed a preventive order regarding the same subject matter. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Orders - Jurisdiction - Where a competent court is already seized of a dispute and has granted a temporary injunction, another court cannot pass a conflicting interim order directing deposit of the same sum - The impugned order directing deposit of Rs.5,00,000 was held unsustainable on its face as the Kanpur court had already restrained the appellant from remitting the disputed amount (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the motion judge could direct the appellant to deposit Rs.5,00,000 when the competent court at Kanpur was already seized of the dispute and had granted a temporary injunction against remittance of the disputed sum.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 27th June 1996 is set aside. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Civil Procedure
- Interim Orders
- Jurisdiction
- Injunction
- Deposit
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 3
APPEAL NO.769 OF 1996 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2867 OF 1992 IN SUIT NO.3050 OF 1992
R.M. Lodha, J.P. Devadhar
Mr. Chetan Kapadia with Mr. Darshan Mehta i/b. Dhruv Liladhar & Co. for the appellant. None for the respondents.
M/s. Fleming Shaw & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Commercial Union Assurance Company of Australia Ltd., M/s. Associated Marine Assurance Agents Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Insimpex Corporation, The Reserve Bank of India, The British India Corporation Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against an interim order directing deposit of money in a civil suit.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the order dated 27th June 1996 directing it to deposit Rs.5,00,000.
Filing Reason
The appellant was aggrieved by the motion judge's order directing deposit of Rs.5,00,000 when the Kanpur court was already seized of the dispute and had granted a temporary injunction against remittance of the disputed sum.
Previous Decisions
The Civil Judge, Kanpur had granted a temporary injunction against the appellant not to remit the disputed sum of Rs.7,91,214.38 out of India.
Issues
Whether the motion judge could direct deposit of Rs.5,00,000 when the Kanpur court was already seized of the dispute and had granted a temporary injunction.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the impugned order was unsustainable because the Kanpur court had already passed a preventive order regarding the same subject matter.
Ratio Decidendi
Where a competent court is already seized of a dispute and has granted a temporary injunction, another court cannot pass a conflicting interim order directing deposit of the same sum. The impugned order was unsustainable on its face.
Judgment Excerpts
Upon perusal of the impugned order, we find that the said order is unsustainable on its face.
The competent court namely Civil Judge, Kanpur is seized of the dispute between the parties.
Procedural History
The suit was filed in Bombay High Court. Notice of Motion No.2867 of 1992 was taken out. On 27th June 1996, the motion judge directed the appellant to deposit Rs.5,00,000. The appellant filed Appeal No.769 of 1996 against that order. The appeal was heard on 10th August 2005.
