Case Note & Summary
The case involves cross-appeals arising from a commercial suit filed by Bank of Baroda against Dr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty and Dr. Chandrakumari Raghuram Shetty. The Bank claimed that the first defendant, a businessman with global interests, had availed substantial credit facilities from the Bank through various entities and personally. The first defendant had executed several personal guarantees to secure repayment obligations. As of May 2020, the aggregate exposure exceeded ₹2,077 crore. The Bank alleged that the defendants were under financial distress and being investigated by multiple authorities. In a meeting on 18 March 2020, the first defendant acknowledged liabilities and agreed to provide comfort by securing immovable properties. Consequently, on 21 April 2020, both defendants executed a Letter of Undertaking with Negative Lien and Creation of Mortgage covering sixteen immovable properties situated in Bengaluru and Mangaluru. The Bank claimed that the defendants breached the Negative Lien Letter and failed to secure the Bank's interest. Despite a legal notice dated 3 May 2020, the first defendant refused to comply. The Bank filed Commercial Original Suit No. 1 of 2020 before the Commercial Court at Bengaluru seeking specific performance of the Negative Lien Letter and permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from alienating properties or dealing with assets. Along with the suit, the Bank filed interim applications (IA Nos. I and II) under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC praying for temporary injunctions to restrain the first defendant from disposing of or encumbering his assets, including the scheduled immovable properties. The Trial Court, by order dated 28 August 2020, partly allowed the applications. Being aggrieved by the partial rejection of relief, the Bank preferred COMAP No. 26 of 2020. The defendants also filed COMAP Nos. 27 and 28 of 2020 challenging the same order. The High Court heard all three appeals together. The judgment text provided, however, cuts off during the narration of facts and does not include the court's analysis, findings, or final decision. Therefore, the specific legal issues framed, submissions of counsel, reasoning, and the operative order of the High Court are not available in the extracted portion. The case underscores a dispute over enforcement of a negative lien undertaking and the scope of interim protection in commercial matters.
Issue of Consideration
KAHC010256542020_1
