BABU LAL & ORS. versus M/S VIJAY SOLVEX LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 6 S.C.R. 1128 · Decided: 04-08-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 6 S.C.R. 1128 
A 
BABU LAL & ORS. 
.s 
V. 
M/S VIJAY SOLVEX LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7174 of 2014) 
AUGUST 4, 2014 . 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
Injunction: Suit for declaration, mandatory injunction, 
c rendition of accounts and permanent injunction - Interim order 
of temporary injunction by trial court - Trial court ordered that 
the appellants-applicants and non..:applicants no. 1 to 31 and 
36._to 43 shall not sell/transfer the immovable properties as 
mentioned in Schedule "Ka" to "Cha" and nor shall they 
0 create any substantial charge on the said properties and the 
Companies/Partnership firms controlled and run by the 
parties of which details have been given in Schedule "Ka" to 
"Cha" regarding them the audited accounts of income and 
expenditure shall be presented before the Court - High Court 
E perused the family settlement and modified the interim order 
and set aside the temporary injunction granted in favour of 
appellants and confirmed that part of the order requiring 
production of audited/unaudited accounts of the companies! 
partnership firms run by the parties - On appeal, held: In the 
F instant case, the parties have raised similar pleas which were 
taken before the High Court· - However, while dealing with 
. matter relating to vacation of order qf temporary injunction, it 
was not open for the High Court to give a finding on the main 
issue relating to maintainability of the suit and the family 
settlement reached between the parties - The impugned· 
G judgment is set aside - Matter remitted to High Court for fresh 
disposal. 
In a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction, 
rendition of accounts and permanent injunction against 
H 
1128 
BABU LAL & ORS. v. VIJAY SOLVEX LTD. 
1129 
the-defendants/non-applicants, the trial court found that 
A 
the plaintiffs have made out partially a prima facie case. 
The application for temporary injunction against the non-
a p plica nt and the counter temporary injunction 
application filed on behalf of the non-applicants were 
lpartly allowed. The trial court ordered that the applicants 
B 
and non-applicants no.1 to 31 and 36 to 43 shall not sell/ 
transfer the immovable properties as mentioned. in 
Schedule "Ka" to "Cha" and nol' shat1 they create any 
substantial charge on the said properties and the 
Companies/Partnership firms controlled and run by the c 
parties of which details have been given in Schedule 
"Ka" to "Cha" regarding them the audited accounts of 
income and expenditure half yearly/annually whichever 
is got done in the normal sequence shall be presented 
before the Court. Apart from that the other prayers which 
0 
were made by both the parties were rejected. 
Aggrieved, the non-applicants challenged the said 
order before the High Court. The High Court perused the. 
family settlement between the parties and modified the 
interim order and set aside the temporary injunction 
E 
granted in favour of plaintiffs/appellants and confirmed 
that part of the order requiring production of audited/ 
unaudited accounts of the companies/partnership firms 
run by the parties. The instant appeal was filed 
challenging the order of the High Court. 
F 
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to 
High Court for fresh disposal, the Court 
HELD: In the instant case, the parties have raised 
similar pleas which were taken before the High Court. 
G 
However, while dealing with a matter relating to vacation 
of order of temporary injunction, it was not open for the 
High Court to give a finding on the main issue relating to 
H 
-
1130 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 
A maintainability of the suit and the family settlement 
reached between the parties. The impugned judgment is 
set aside. [Para 7] [1136-F-G] 
Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance Industries 
B Ltd. (2010) 7 SCC 1: 2010 (5) SCR 704; Sangram Singh P. 
Gaekwad and Ors. v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (D) Through 
LRs. & Ors. (2005) 11 SCC 314: 2005 (1) SCR 624 - referred 
to. 
c 
Case Law Reference: 
2010 (5) SCR 704 
2005 (1) SCR 624 
Referred to 
Referred to 
Para 5 
Para 5 
. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
D 7174 of 2014. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2012 in CMA 
No. 2218/2011 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at 
Jaipur. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 7175 of 2014, C.A. No. 7195·7201 of 2014 and C.A. 
No. 7177 of 2014 @ SLP (C) No. 18420/2012. 
F 
H.P. Raval, Dushyant Dave, Shiv Mangal Sharma, Ramesh 
Singh, Aksh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.