S B I Vs. FRAVINA DYES INTERMEDIATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal challenges the order of the trial Court by which the application for injunction filed by the appellant is rejected on the grounds that no injunction as sought for could be granted as the subject matter of the suit is recovery of money and therefore O.39 of the C.P.C. is not attracted.

(2.) Having regard to the controversy involved what need be stated is that the appellant State Bank of India advanced a loan to the respondents and as a security thereof the first respondent mortgaged their machinery, equipment, raw material in favour of that Bank at the same time agreeing to repay the loan advanced in a certain manner. The respondents having committed breach with regard to the repayment, the State Bank of India was forced to file a Suit for recovery of Rs. 3,91,230.58 which was instituted on or about July, 1987. On institution of the Suit the State Bank apprehended that the respondents may do away with the assets mortgaged in its favour and therefore sought an injunction restraining the respondents from transferring, alienating or shifting machinery, raw materials, etc. The learned Judge on misdirecting himself that the Suit being a Suit for recovery of money thought that under O.39 C.P.C. he could not grant the injunction sought for by the Bank. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the injunction sought for under O.39 of C.P.C. was not available to the Bank, the undeniable fact is that having regard to the recovery of large amount sought as against the respondents there are ample provisions on which the learned trial Judge could have rested upon. The learned Judge would do well to refer to S.94 of C.P.C. which gives ample powers to grant injunctions or to make such other interlocutory orders which may appear to be just and necessary even if O.39 is not applicable. Section 151 of C.P.C. can also be applied when the circumstances of the case justify an order to protect the interest of a party. It is needless to mention that State Bank of India is a Government Bank which having advanced money to the respondent is liable to be protected. It cannot be forgotten that the money advanced to the respondents is the property belonging to the depositors of the Bank. On all these considerations therefore the impugned order dt. 10th Aug. 1987 cannot be allowed to stand.

(3.) The impugned order made by the trial Court was dismissing the application in limine. The trial Court is directed to now consider the prayer of the petitioner Bank and to make an appropriate order and issue notice to the respondents to show cause against the same and decide the application for injunction on merits without getting influenced by the observations made. Until the application is decided the respondents are restrained from alienating, transfering, disposing of or creating any encumbrance on the assets mortgaged in favour of the appellant/Bank.