Gauhati High Court
M/S Protech Housing vs Manoj Kumar Jalan And 7 Ors on 17 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/12
GAHC010031422026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : FAO/10/2026
M/S PROTECH HOUSING
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 AS WELL AS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
SOCIETIES ACT, 1860, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT 604,
PROTECH CENTRE, 6TH FLOOR, GANESHGURI, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI-6,
IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781006, REPRESSENTED
BY ITS ONE OF THE PARTNER, SRI LOKESH ANAND SINGHAL, AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O SHRI ASHOK ANAND SINGHAL, R/O. 1A, MONALISA
PATH, GEETANAGAR, P/S. GEETANAGAR, ZOO ROAD, GUWAHATI-781024,
IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
VERSUS
MANOJ KUMAR JALAN AND 7 ORS.
S/O LATE MAHABIR PRASAD JALAN, R/O GEETA MANSION, M.G. PATH,
CHRISTIAN BASTI, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781005.
2:SMTI LALITA DEVI JALAN
W/O SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JALAN
R/O GEETA MANSION
M.G. PATH
CHRISTIAN BASTI
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781005.
3:VIVEK ANAND SINGHAL
S/O SHRI ASHOK ANAND SINGHAL
R/O 1A
MONALISA PATH
GEETA NAGAR
Page No.# 2/12
ZOO ROAD
GUWAHATI-781024.
4:SMTI SHILPI ANAND SINGHAL
W/O SHRI ASHOK ANAND SINGHAL
R/O 1A
MONALISA PATH
GEETA NAGAR
ZOO ROAD
GUWAHATI-781024
5:PROTECH BUILDCON PVT. LTD.
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE COMPANIES ACT
1956 AND/OR 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PROTECH CENTRE
6TH FLOOR
GANESHGURI
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
781006 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SMTI. SHILPI ANAND SINGHAL
6:PROTECH REALTORS PVT. LTD.
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE COMPANIES ACT
1956 AND/OR 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PROTECH CENTRE
6TH FLOOR
GANESHGURI
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
781006 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SMTI. SHILPI ANAND SINGHAL
7:ASSOCIATED INDIA PVT. LTD.
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE COMPANIES ACT
1956 AND/OR 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT 426
THIRD FLOOR
BAROOAH MARKET
M.G. ROAD
GUWAHATI
Page No.# 3/12
ASSAM
781001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SMTI. SHILPI ANAND SINGHAL
8:AI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE COMPANIES ACT
1956 AND/OR 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT A-22 ASHOK VIHAR-
PHASE-2
NORTH WEST
NEW DELHI-110052 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SMTI. SHILPI ANAND SINGHA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P ROY, S A BAKHTIAR,MR K JAIN,MR. N ALAM
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B D DEKA (FOR CAVEATOR), MR A DEKA(R1,2),N
CHAUDHURY(R1,2),MR. M DAS(R1,2),MR. B D DEKA(R1,2),MR. M DAS (FOR CAVEATOR)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
ORDER
17.02.2026
1. This appeal with an Interlocutory Application has been preferred in seeking ad- interim injunction restraining the defendants, their employees, workmen, agents, associates, and servants, from conducting any event, in the project of 'Protech Tarunnagar' under plaintiff firm and from further transferring, alienating and encumbering the same in any manner as described in the schedule below, unilaterally, single handedly and behind the back of all the partners of the plaintiff firm and without their consent.
2. I have heard Mr. N. Alam, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The present appellant had instituted a suit for permanent injunction Page No.# 4/12 being T.S. No. 73/26, before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), No. 3, Kamrup (M), along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking ad-interim injunction restraining the OPs, their employees, workmen, agents, associates, and servants, sister concerns, from conducting any event in the project of 'Protech Tarunnagar' under the Petitioner firm and from further transferring, alienating and encumbering the same in any manner as described in the schedule, unilaterally, single handedly and behind the back of all the partners of the Petitioner firm and without their consent.
4. The petitioner's case in brief is that the petitioner - Protech Housing - is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, part of Protech Group (where the Singhal Family holds 75% stake and Shri Manoj Kumar Jalan& Family hold minority stake), with the sole project being 'ProtechTarun Nagar' at Guwahati. OPs Nos. 1 and 2, while being partners in Protech Group, have been running 'Ambika Group' in direct conflict of interest, in violation of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Disputes arose due to OP No. 1's financial misappropriation exceeding Rs. 35 Crores through false billing, under-delivery of materials, and diversion of employees from Protech Group to Ambika Group. The parties executed the Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) dated 23.09.2024, which is final and binding under Section 27 of the Mediation Act, 2023, and has not been challenged (Section 28 bars challenges after 90 days). Clause 7 of the MSA provides- 'Project at Tarun Nagar will be completed jointly'. The arbitration clause in the partnership deed is no longer operative per Section 61 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Shri Manoj Kr. Jalan fraudulently changed partnership deeds and, in Page No.# 5/12 collusion with IndusInd Bank, illegally obtained sole bank signatory control of all Protech Group entities (FIR lodged on 10.05.24 - Dispur P.S. Case No. 425/24 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC). The Petitioner's partner filed a complaint with IndusInd Bank on 14.05.24 requesting a freeze on the Petitioner's account. IndusInd Bank froze accounts on 16.05.24. OP No. 1 agreed to negotiate and promised to exit, and the Petitioner's partner requested unfreezing of the accounts. Post unfreeze, Shri Manoj Kr. Jalan influenced Shri VivekanandSinghal to coerce his mother into signing fraudulent resignations as Director from Protech Group companies. Despite signing the MSA, Shri Manoj Kr. Jalan took no steps towards Implementation and continued operating all Protech Group bank accounts illegally. OP No. 1 deceptively obtained signatures on financial auditor's reports and continues financial misappropriation to benefit his competing Ambika Group. Shri LokeshAnandSinghal wrote to IndusInd Bank on 10.12.2024, requesting reassignment of signing authority. The bank denied his status as Partner/Director on 13.12.2024, contradicting its May 2024 recognition. The OPs filed a Section 9 application on 18.12.2024 (Misc. Arbitration Case No. 205/2024), wilfully suppressing the MSA, and obtained an ex parte Injunction on 19.12.2024. They immediately began operating all Protech Group bank accounts. IndusInd Bank's letter dated 21.12.24 stated that OP No. 1 wilfully submitted the Invalid partnership deed dated 04.11.2019 in place of the valid deed dated 29.12.2021. Despite RBI directives requiring Re- KYC, the Re-KYC remains incomplete after almost 15 months, and the bank has not suspended account operations as required. On 30.04.2025, Shri LokeshAnandSinghal and his mother instituted Title Suit No. Page No.# 6/12 266/2025 seeking equal bank signatory rights and to decree the MSA. Protech Housing and the OPs No. 1, 2, and 3 are parties to the pending suit. The matter was appealed as F.A.O No. 31/2025. The Judgment dated 10.11.2025 re-directed the trial court to decide the matter, which is still pending. On 01.11.2025, Shri LokeshAnand Singhal learned that Shri Manoj Kr. Jalan planned to hold an event Illegally on 8.11.2025 to gain credit for the project 'Protech Dharapur Phase 1' under AerocityBuildcon Pvt Ltd, even before the work was fully completed, implicating his intent to dispossess the Singhal Family of their rightful share per Clause 1 of the MSA. Commercial Suit No. 292/2025 was filed, which is still pending. The OPs have repeatedly filed adjournment petitions in Title Suit No. 266/2025, inclicating a mala fide intent to delay its disposal. After the final hearing for Misc. (Arb.) Case No. 205/2024 was reserved for final order on 17.02.2026, Shri Manoj Kr. Jalan and other OPs have planned to illegally conduct an event at the ProtechTarun Nagar project starting from 11.02.2026 to illegitimately gain sole credit, without the work being fully completed. The Petitioner contends that if this illegally planned event takes Place, flat purchasers may file legal proceedings with the RERA Authority, and the Petitioner's partner and the Singhal Family will suffer legal injury, penalties, and irreparable loss of goodwill and reputation. The Petitioner contends that the aforesaid activities have been initiated by OP No. 1 with malicious intent to deprive the Petitioner's partner of vested legal rights, contrary to the MSA, thereby causing irreparable loss. The illegal acts came to the Petitioner's knowledge on 03.02.2026 and 04.02.2026. The Petitioner contends that such conduct would be in violation of the partnership deed and the MSA, Page No.# 7/12 and would cause irreparable loss to the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner has sought an ad-interim injunction restraining the OPs from conducting any event and from transferring, alienating, or encumbering the project property.
5. The learned Court below after considering the contentions of the plaintiff/petitioner as reflected in the pleadings and enclosed documents, came to a finding that no prima facie case was made out for the grant of ad-interim injunction without notice to the opposite party. The learned Court below also found that the petitioner therein had not met the other two requirements for the grant of an interim injunction that is balance of convenience and proof of irreparable harm. Accordingly, notice was issued to the opposite parties and the matter has been listed for a hearing on the injunction application on 10.03.2026.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure 15 of the memo of appeal, which is a translated copy of a WhatsApp message said to have been issued by the respondent which is reproduced herein below:-
"Translated Copy ANNEXURE NO. 15 good news It is with great pleasure that we inform you all that the hold event of Pran Pratishta Mahotsav is going to be organized at Shri Ganesh Mandir, Protech Tarun Nagar.
Om Prana Pratishta Festival 24 Date: February 11, 2026 to February 15, 2026 Page No.# 8/12 thereafter The divine and auspicious event of Shrimad Bhagwat Katha will be completed.
Srimad Bhagavat Katha 24 Date: 18 February 2026 to 24 February 2026 Host/Organizer of this religious event: Protech Tarunnagar family All you devotees should come with your family and receive the blessings of Lord Shri Ganesh and Shri Hari and make this auspicious occasion a success. Your gracious presence is requested is"
7. Further, learned counsel has referred to Annexure 21, which is another WhatsApp message said to have been posted by the respondent side on 12.02.2026, regarding an event held on 11.02.2026, regarding performance of the Pran Pratishta ceremony as part of the handover ceremony of Protech Tarunnagar, which step was taken by the respondent being emboldened by the refusal of the learned Court below to grant ad-interim injunction and meaning thereby that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the sole owners of the Protech group, without the petitioners having any share, which is absolutely illegal and actuated with malice to cause losses, damages, harm, and humiliation to the goodwill and reputation of the other partners (i.e., the appellants/plaintiffs), and the same cannot be measured and compensated in terms of money.
8. It is further submitted that the non-consideration of the injunction prayer amounts to the finality of the aforesaid case, virtually resulting in the dismissal of the suit, which aspect the learned Court below has failed to Page No.# 9/12 appreciate and has given the principal respondents the license to carry out the event on 11.02.2026, and the next phase of the event has been scheduled from 18.02.2026 onwards, in which the principal respondents are going to carry it out behind the back of the partners of the appellant firm, which, if permitted, shall cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner/appellant.
9. It is further contended that the principal defendants have organized this two-week long program just to gain the sole credit, goodwill, and to affect the attention of the valued customers by taking advantage of the brand name of Protech Group without the work even being fully completed, as per brochure and quality standards.
10. It is also stated that it is not the intention of the plaintiff/appellant to cause harm, loss, or delay to the purchasers of the flat. Rather, the qualifying flat purchasers have already been handed over the possession of their flats in 2025, and the majority of them have already started interior work in their flats.
11. Pointing to the interim order, wherein it has been held that the petitioner has not shown sufficient urgency warranting dispensing with the notice, it is submitted that the application was heard on 09.02.2026 and the event was set for 11.02.2026, and hence there was not enough time to hear the opposing parties before passing the order of temporary injunction.
12. It is stated in the instant petition that the disputes arose because of Shri Manoj Kr. Jalan's (Defendant No. 1), financial misappropriation/siphoning of huge funds and Conflict of Interest due to his parallelly running Page No.# 10/12 Ambika Group, during the course of business activities of Protech Group and in order to settle this dispute one, SHRI ADITYA PARASRAMKA acted as a mediator to settle the dispute between the parties. And through the said mediator, in his due presence in the meeting - Shri Lokesh Anand Singhal (Plaintiff No. 2), Shri Vivek Anand Singhal (Defendant No. 3) both representing the Singhal Family, and Shri Manoj Kr. Jalan (Defendant No. 1) representing the Jalan Family, came to terms for settlement of dispute and signed/ executed the Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) / Family Settlement/Partition Deed/MOU dated 23.09.2024.
13. It is stated that, as per Section 27 of the Mediation Act, 2023, the aforesaid MSA is binding on the parties and enjoys the status of a decree passed by a Court, and the same has not been challenged till date and since 90 days have passed since its execution, no challenges are permissible unless the MSA has attained finality. It is further stated that, as per Clause 7 of the MSA dated 23.09.2024, the Protech Tarunnagar will be completed jointly and it is contended that, in view of the aforesaid MSA, the existing partnership deed dated 29.12.2021 stands superseded.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that there is a long history of litigation between the parties, and has drawn the attention of the Court to the Deed of Partnership dated 04.11.2019 (Annexure 3) as well as the Deed of Admission of new partners dated 29.12.2021 (Annexure 2), which shows that the plaintiff/appellant and the principal defendants are partners of the firm which is handling the project in question that is the Protech Tarunnagar project and as per Page No.# 11/12 Clause 20 of the deed of partnership, all disputes concerning the partnership affairs, if not settled mutually, shall be referred to arbitration.
15. It is submitted that, in view of the above, as well as Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the civil suit is not maintainable. Furthermore, the learned Court below has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances and applied the settled principles of law as applicable and decided not to exercise discretion to grant an ad-interim injunction without hearing the opposing parties and, therefore, the said order cannot be faulted.
16. A perusal of the mediated settlement agreement referred to by the appellant would show that it is in the nature of a family settlement primarily concerning the division of properties between the two families and there is nothing in the said agreement to indicate that the partnership created by the aforesaid deed of partnership dated 04.11.2019 stands dissolved. Therefore, prima facie, the arbitration clause in the said partnership agreement appears to be still in force and, prima facie, therefore, the suit appears to be not maintainable. Moreover, public interest is a relevant consideration while considering a prayer for injunction and therefore the learned Court below cannot be faulted for taking into account the interest of the home buyers. As already admitted by the appellant, the qualifying purchasers have already been handed over the flats and as for the rest, it is up to them to accept delivery of the flats purchased by them, if work remains the be completed.
17. Taking into consideration the state of completion of the project, this Court would tend to agree with the finding of the learned Court below Page No.# 12/12 that any interference by the Court at this stage resulting in denial of handing over possession of the flats would adversely affect the interest of the purchasers. Nothing has been shown as to how the principal defendants being partners of the firm are not entitled to hand over possession of the flats to the purchasers with reference to any clause in the partnership deed. Rather, Clause 10 of the said deed of partnership states that any of the partners shall be entitled to act, appear, and sign all or any documents and papers on behalf of the firm in respect of its business as well as in respect of anything relating to any legal or arbitration proceedings and also in other matters related with the business of the firm.
18. Keeping in view the above, more particularly, the question of maintainability of the suit itself, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Further, since the learned Court below has already issued notice to the opposite parties therein and fixed the matter for injunction hearing, the issue is best left to be decided by the learned Court below.
19. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant