SHAH ASSOCIATES Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner/plaintiff (for short 'petitioner') has challenged the order dated 18th May, 2012 passed by the learned Trial Court on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC'). The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 6th August, 2012 passed by the learned Appellate Court on an appeal against the order dated 18th May, 2012; upholding the order of the learned Trial Court.

(2.) Shorn of the unnecessary details, the essential material facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy raised in the writ application are that the petitioner firm instituted a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction pleading that the petitioner is involved in the business of sale and purchase of the plants, machinery and scrap of sick industries. An industrial concern in the name of 'Dalmiya Dairy Industries' was closed in the year 1999 on account of losses, and presently is known by the name of M/s. Bharatpur Nutritional Products Limited. The workmen of the industry instituted a suit before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Bharatpur with a prayer that the plants and machinery situated in the factory premises may not be misappropriated and transferred, and if at all, it was necessary to sell the plant and machinery of the industry, then the sale proceeds be first utilized for due payment of the salary, gratuity and bonus of the workers. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was entertained and by an order dated 22nd September, 2007, it was ordered that the sale proceeds out of the plant and machinery, should be first utilized to make the due payment of the workers. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that the petitioner purchased the plant, machinery and other goods lying in the premises of the said industry on 1st May, 2008. Since the petitioner was not allowed to shift the goods and threats were held out on 13.7.2008, 20.4.2009 and 14.4.2010, to cause loss and was not permitted to remove the goods; an application was filed before the Sub Divisional Officer, who declined to extend any help. Therefore, the petitioner instituted a civil suit along with an application for temporary and mandatory injunction and an order dated 16th June, 2010 was passed by the learned Trial Court restraining the union of the workers from interfering in shifting of the goods purchased by the petitioner. The order dated 16th June, 2010 was subjected to an appeal unsuccessfully since the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 21st August, 2010. Since, the present respondents/defendants (for short 'respondents') interfered with the shifting of the goods, the petitioner was forced to institute the present suit along with an application for temporary and mandatory injunction on account of damage and loss caused on day-to-day basis. The learned Trial Court declined the application vide impugned order dated 18th May, 2012, which was subjected to appeal before the learned Appellate Court, which has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 6th August, 2012 upholding the order of the learned Trial Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts urged that the learned Courts below have committed a patent error and illegality in passing the impugned orders for the reason that the Appellate Court while reversing the finding of the learned Trial Court on the issue of prima facie case and balance of convenience; grossly failed to reverse the finding of irreparable loss for the reason that the respondents have no right to restrain the petitioner from shifting the goods and therefore, rejection of the prayer for mandatory injunction on the issue of irreparable loss, is absolutely illegal and an error apparent on the face of record. Further, the petitioner being a bona fide purchaser would suffer irreparable loss and injury on account of deterioration of the goods.