Disposed

Ms Yummygra Chains Private Limited v. Mukesh Kumar Singhania

Calcutta HC20 Nov 2023FMAT/369/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal against the refusal to pass ex parte ad interim injunction. The Special Officer's report provided no light on the matter. Since the respondent entered appearance, the Court directed the Special Officer report to be circulated and permitted the respondent to file an affidavit. Appeal disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Appellant and application disposed. Respondent permitted to file affidavit in opposition within ten days.

Ms Yummygra Chains Private Limited Vs Mukesh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

01 20.11.23

¶2

F.M.A.T. 369 of 2023

CAN 1 of 2023

Ct. No. 04

akd

M/s. Yummygra Chains Private Limited Vs. Mukesh Kumar Singhania.

¶7

Mr. Mainak Bose, Mr. Rishabh Karnani, Mr. Nikunj Berlia. … for the appellant.

¶8

Mr. Suman Kumar Dutt, Mr. Debmalya Ghosal, Mr. Niladri Khanra, Mr. Animesh Chatterjee, Mr. Mainak Biswas. … for the respondent.

¶9

Pursuant to the order dated 17^th November, 2023 the Special Officer appointed by us submits the report, which is taken on record. The report reveals the state of affairs existing on the date of inspection which does not throw any light on the installation and/or equipment installed by the appellant therein. Let the copy of the report of the Special Officer be circulated amongst the appearing Counsels, which, in fact, has been done in Court today.

¶10

We make it clear that the Special Officer was appointed for the purpose of the instant appeal which shall not be treated as report submitted by a commissioner on inspection done under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶11

The instant appeal arises from the order by which the Trial Court refused to pass an ex parte ad interim order of injunction. Obviously the scope of the instant appeal is limited, as the application for temporary injunction is pending before the Trial Court. Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code though provides the power of the Trial Court to pass an ex parte ad interim order of injunction, but the normal rule as envisaged therefrom

¶12

¶13

is that endeavour must be made to serve notice or the copy of the application upon the defendant.

¶14

Since the Court did not find any exception to be taken as provided under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code, we, therefore, feel that justice would be subserved if the defendant, who appeared before us, is afforded an opportunity of hearing and the injunction application is decided by the Trial Court on priority basis.

¶15

We are conscious that any observations made on the merit of the case may have an impact on the decision to be taken by the Trial Court, therefore, we refrain ourselves to make any observation on the merit of the instant case.

¶16

Since the defendant has entered appearance in the instant appeal, he is permitted to file affidavit-inopposition to the application for temporary injunction within ten days from date; reply thereto, if any, be filed within three days thereafter.

¶17

The Trial Court is requested to dispose of the application for temporary injunction within fortnight from the date of expiration of the period for exchange of affidavits on merit and by recording proper reasons in accordance with law.

¶18

For abundant precaution we hereby make it clear that any observations touching upon the merit of the case whether, accidentally or incidentally, shall not have any persuasive effect on the learned Judge in deciding the application for temporary injunction in presence of the parties.

¶19

With the above observations the instant appeal and application are disposed of.

¶20

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

¶21

Ms Yummygra Chains Private Limited v. Mukesh Kumar Singhania

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Yummygra Chains Private Limited v. Mukesh Kumar Singhania

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipankar Ghosh and Ors. Vs Ananda Mohan Ghosh and Ors.

Swadhin Chandra Roy & Ors. Vs Mukul Chandra Roy & Ors.

Badsha Sk and Anr. Vs Sefali Bibi and Ors.

Treasure Island Pre School and Ors. Vs M/S Crossworld Learnign Sytem Opc Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Sabit Sekh Vs Ujran Nesa Bibi and Ors.

Yajur Fibres Limited Vs Dharmendra Tiwari and Ors.