RAMU ANNAMALAI Vs. G.I.TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the leanred counsel for the fourth respondent through video conferencing.

(2.) These applications have been filed for interim injunctions restraining the respondents 2 and 3 from dealing with the assets of the first respondent maintained in Karur Vysya Bank and also to restrain the granishees, namely respondents 5 to 9 from transferring any sum from the first respondent's bank account and back to the first respondent company.

(3.) The main contention of the applicant is that the first respondent company was looking for investments to fund their then current and future expansions of the business and the second and third respondents have entrered into a share holder agreement on 21.10.2015 with the first respondent. According to the applicant, in the first respondent company, the applicant is holding 40% of the shares and the remaining 60% of the shares are held by the second and third respondents. As per the Articles of Association, if the amount are to be dealt for more than 5 cores, the same will require consent or appropriate resolution. However, contrary to the Articles of Association, the second and third respondents are dealing with the monies, though initially there was consent for borrowal of money from the bank namely Karu Vysya Bank for the benefit of the first respondent company, amount borrowed to the tune of Rs.99 crores has not been utilised for the first respondent company. And out of 99 Crores, O.D. for a sum of Rs.54 crores has been transferred to the fourth respondent. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that after filing of the suit, when the respondents are also aware of the proceedings, they had tried to transfer monies to various other companies. If the amount of the first respondent lying in the bank is not protected, it will create serious damage to the plaintiff.