UNIVERSAL SHOE COMPANY AND ORS Vs. BELLUTI SIMONE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Original Side Appeals have been preferred by the respondents in O.P.No.477 of 2011, being aggrieved against the order passed by the learned single Judge in allowing the Applications filed in O.A.No.482 of 2011, A.No.2532 of 2011 and the consequential dismissal of Application No.3117 of 2011. The respondents herein filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Pending the Application in O.A.No.482 of 2011, the respondents filed an application in A.No.2532 of 2011, by which an order of interim injunction restraining the 5th respondent/Garnishee, from making payment to the appellants, was sought for. In O.A.No.482 of 2011, the respondents sought for an order of interim injunction restraining the appellants from alienating or encumbering the schedule mentioned properties. Application No.3117 of 2011 has been filed by the appellants seeking to vacate the order of injunction granted in O.A.No.482 of 2011. As the learned single Judge ordered O.A.No.482 of 2011 and A.No.2532 of 2011 and consequently dismissed Application No.3117 of 2011 filed for vacating the order of injunction obtained in O.A.No.482 of 2011, the present Appeals have been preferred.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the learned single Judge has not considered the scope of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The principle laid down therein, viz., the balance of convenience, prima facie case and the likelihood of irreparable loss, have not been considered. Therefore, in view of the procedural violations, the order passed by the learned single Judge, has to be interfered with.

(3.) During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants filed an affidavit of undertaking, stating that the appellants will not alienate item Nos.1 to 3 of the items shown in Schedule-A property mentioned in O.A.No.482 of 2011. A further submission has been made to the effect that insofar as the 4th item of the property is concerned, it is a house property in which the 3rd appellant was residing as a tenant and therefore, there was no necessity for passing an order by the learned single Judge. It has also been stated in the affidavit of undertaking that item No.4 of Schedule-A does not belong to any of the appellants. Insofar as item No.5 of Schedule-A is concerned, considering that it consists of raw materials, stocks-in-process, semi-finished and finished goods, the order of injunction will have be vacated so as to enable the appellants to do the business. A further submission has also been made that even the respondents would not be benefited by the said order of injunction.