Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Arvind Kumar Jain vs Manoharlal Jain & Ors on 19 September, 2013
Author: Ashim Kumar Banerjee
Bench: Ashim Kumar Banerjee
1
19 19.09. F.M.A.T. 1144 of 2013
&
2013 With
23 CAN 9749 of 2013
ns
Arvind Kumar Jain
Versus
Manoharlal Jain & ors.
F.M.A.T. 1138 of 2013
With
F.M.A.T. 1139 of 2013
With
F.M.A.T. 1140 of 2013
with
CAN 9517 of 2013
Pramod Kumar Jain.
- Versus -
Arvind Kumar Jain.
Mr. Jishnu Saha,
Mr. Varun Kedia .... For the appellant.
(in FMAT 1138 of 2013)
Mr. Anindya Mitra, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Ratnanka Banerjee,
Mr. Paritosh Sinha,
Mr. Amitava Mitra,
Mr. Arindam Mukherjee,
Ms. Dolon Dasgupta,
Mr. Joydeep Roy,
Mr. Snehashis Sen,
Mr. Shiladitya Barman .... For the respondent no.1.
(appellant in FMAT 1144/13) Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Jain .... For the respondent no.3.
Mr. U. S. Menon .... For the respondent no.4.
Times and again, the Apex Court cautioned us in respect of ex- parte ad-interim order of injunction. Yet, orders are passed without assigning any reason.
These four appeals would relate to an order passed on August 3, 2013 whereby the learned Judge passed an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff directing the parties to maintain status quo.
The other two orders would just extend the time bound ad-
2interim order, that too, without assigning any reason.
The fourth appeal being FMAT 1144 of 2013, however, would relate to the plaintiff's grievance, the learned Judge should have extended it till the disposal of the appeal.
We are of the view, the learned Judge while passing the ex-parte ad-interim order should have assigned reasons, why an exception was made while passing the said order without giving opportunity to the defendants to have their views.
The appeal being FMAT 1138 of 2013 thus succeeds and is allowed. The order dated August 3, 2013 is set aside.
We make it clear, we have not gone into the merits of the matter.
Mr. Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, would however insist, we should give an interim protection so that no prejudice is caused in the meantime.
Per contra, Mr. Jishnu Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend, no allegation or apprehension to the said extent is spelt out in the petition. He assures this Court, until the learned Judge hears the matter, no prejudice would be caused to anyone.
Mr. Mitra informs this Court, the learned Judge already heard the parties on the extension of interim order. However, order is reserved in view of pendency of the appeals. The learned Judge would be free to pass any order but after giving full hearing to the parties and after assigning reasons thereof in accordance with law.
We thus dispose of these appeals along with the applications without any order as to costs.
Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.
( Banerjee, J. ) ( Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri, J. )