Kartiken Logistics P Ltd., v. Kothari Industrial Corporation

O.A. Nos.184 and 185 of 2016 K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.

O.A.No.184 of 2016 is filed to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents , their men, servants and/ or agents or any other person acting on the basis of any instructions issued by them or on the basis of any resolution passed by the 1st respondent company including the 3rd respondent from in any manner proposing any resolution at the share holders meeting of the 1st respondent Company proposed to be held on 30.03.2016 in relation to the lands belonging to the 1st respondent company which are the subject matter of the SHA and O&M Agreement, pending adjudication of the dispute/ issue in the arbitration in this regard. O.A.No.185 of 2016 is filed to grant an order of interim injunction from giving effect to any resolution passed by the shareholders meeting of the 1st respondent Company proposed to be held on 30.03.2016 in relation to the lands belonging to the 1st respondent Company which are the subject matter of the SHA and O&M Agreement pending adjudication of the dispute/ issue in the arbitration in this regard.

2. It is the apprehension of the applicant that in the proposed meeting to be held on 30.03.2016, the interim order of injunction already granted by this Court in O.A.Nos.1030 to 1032 of 2014, is sought to be violated.

3. It is seen that the interim order granted as early as 27.02.2015 in the above said O.A.Nos.1030 to 1032 of 2014 is in force and continuing even as on today. Therefore, it is needless to state that the parties to the said

K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.

vsi order, more particularly, against whom such injunction is granted are bound to obey the said order in its letter and spirit. If there is any violation of the said order, it is open to the applicant in O.A.Nos.184 and 185 of 2016 to bring it to the knowledge of this Court by taking out appropriate application so that this Court can take notice of such violation, if any, and take appropriate action including for Contempt of Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 in these applications, however, submitted that there is no intention on the part of the respondents to violate the order already passed and the apprehension of the applicant is baseless.

5. The said statement of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, is recorded.

6. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances, I am of the view that there is no necessity for the applicant now to file these applications, when already an order of the injunction is passed as stated supra. Accordingly, both the applications are closed. 29.03.2016 vsi O.A. Nos.184 and 185 of 2016