(1.) The Defendants by this Interim Application have sought vacation of the ex parte order dtd. 5/4/2023 under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Under the said provision any Order for injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside by an application made by any party dissatisfied with such Order. The proviso to Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that if in an application for temporary injunction or in any Affidavit supporting such application, a party has knowingly made a false or misleading statement in relation to a material particular and the injunction was granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall vacate the injunction unless, for reasons to be recorded, it considers that it is not necessary to do so in the interest of justice.
(2.) Mr. Dhond, Mr. Jagtiani and Mr. Cama have made submissions on behalf of the respective Defendants in support of the application. They have submitted that there are various suppressions made by the Plaintiff in the pleadings and in the event such disclosures had been made by the Plaintiff, this Court would not have passed the ex parte order without giving notice to the Defendants and / or hearing the Defendants prior to passing of any such order. Reference is made to certain paragraphs in the Plaint, in particular, paragraphs 11.5 to 11.8 of the Plaint.
(3.) In paragraph 11.5 of the Plaint the Plaintiff has stated that in the year 2015, the other Directors of the Plaintiff Company learnt of the incorporation of Defendant Company by Defendant Nos.2 and 3. When confronted, Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have informed that the Defendant Company was formed to handle their personal investments. There is mention made of Defendant Nos.2 and 3 being made aware of the fact that they could not operate a business competing with that of the Plaintiff Company. Further, it is stated that owing to the family ties, which bear implicit trust and faith in each other, no further probe was carried out and issue stood rested.