Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
DR. RAJESHWAR KUMAR MALHOTRA & ANR. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M/S.LLOYD ELECTRIC ENGINEERING LTD. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/12/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.16990 OF 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C)No.22769 of 1996)
O R D E R
Leave granted .
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
Intervention is permitted .
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of
the High Court of Rajasthan, made on October 24, 1996 in
Revision Petition No.715/96. One matter relates to the two
individuals, i.e., appellants in appeal arising out of SLP
(C) No. 22164, namely, Dr. Rajeshwar Kumar Malhotra and
S.Srinivasan. This Court on November 26,1996 directed as
under:
"We do not find any substance in
the appeal as regards the
injunction against the individual
petitioner is concerned. But as
regards the injunction against the
Company Shri Salve, learned senior
counsel appearing for the
respondents seeks for and is
granted one week’s time as to how
the injunction requires to be
modulated."
Accordingly, the matter was adjourned. Today, Shri
Soli J.Sorabjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.22769/96,
namely, appeal filed by the company has stated that in the
rejoinder affidavit, the appellant has stated that the
aforestated two persons resigned from the respective posts
held by them in the company. As a result, they are no longer
continuing in the company. It is also pointed out that
share held by the different groups as stated at page 148 of
the additional paper-book filed in this case, are different
and varied. So, no injunction can be granted against the
company much less due to the change in the circumstance. We
find force in the contention. Though the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents, Sri Harish Salve, seeks to
contend that the bank had granted loan to the appellants
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
with a condition that the aforestated two persons would be
required to continue to work in the company. Therefore it is
only a make-believe show to see that no injunction is
granted against the company and the one granted against the
company and the one granted by the High Court is vacated.
We do not find any justification for the contention as on
today. If the two persons really still work for the company
in any form and in any manner, it is open to the
respondents to approach the trial Court for appropriate
relief. As facts stand today, injunction granted by the
High Court against the company is not warranted.
The appeals are accordingly allowed with the above
liberty. The injunction order granted against the company
stands dissolve. No costs.