MADHUKAR G ANGUR Vs. ALLIANCE BUSINESS SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two Appeals, MFA No.8545/2017 and MFA No.8554/2017 filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC arise out of the suit O.S.5148/2017, instituted by Alliance Business School at the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. The appellant and the second respondent are defendants 1 and 2 respectively. The said suit is for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from claiming or representing or posing as the Managing Director or Director or Shareholder of the plaintiff company at any place or circumstance. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed two applications, IA.1 and IA.2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter for short referred to as 'CPC') for temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. Under IA.1, the plaintiff sought restrainment of the defendants from interfering with management affairs and administration of the plaintiff company. In the second application for temporary injunction, the plaintiff sought restrainment of the defendants from representing or claiming as Managing Directors or Shareholders of the Company. Since these two applications stood allowed by the trial court by its common order dated 21.10.2017, the first defendant has preferred these appeals.

(2.) Other two appeals, MFA No. 8562/2017 and MFA No. 8847/2017, arise from an order passed on IA No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC in O.S. 3932/2017 instituted by Alliance University for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from entering upon the University campus and causing obstruction in any manner to the administration of the University. The interim application for temporary injunction was allowed; the first and the seventh defendants respectively in the suit have challenged this order by filing separate appeals.

(3.) Mfa No.8356/2017 arises out of the suit, O.S.4202/2016, filed by Alliance Business School and others against Registrar of Companies and others for multiple prohibitory injunctions and mandatory injunction. In this suit also the plaintiffs claimed temporary injunction in line with main reliefs by filing two applications IA.1 and IA.2. To vacate the order of exparte injunction granted at the inception, the defendant filed an application, IA.3, under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC. This application having been allowed and temporary injunction vacated by the trial court, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.