Apart from this the other prayers which have been made by both the parties are rejected.
1 and the defendant Nos.1 to 9.
Plaintiffs appellants Babulal and others filed a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction against the defendants number applicants.
The Companies Partnership firms companytrolled and run by the parties of which the details have been given in Schedule Ka to Cha regarding them the audited accounts of income and expenditure half yearly annually whichever is got done in the numbermal sequence shall be presented before this Court.
The High Court set aside the temporary injunction granted in favour of plaintiffs appellants by the Lower Court and companyfirmed that part of the order requiring production of audited unaudited accounts of the companypanies partnership firms run by the parties.
The Lower Court failed to companysider the companytentions raised by the companycerned defendants and also the documents produced by them.
Appeal No.
The said settlement was also partly acted upon by the defendant Niranjan Lal and other companyarceners and therefore, they cannot be permitted to back out from the said settlement.
The number applicants preferred different miscellaneous appeals against the aforesaid interim order of injunction before the High Court.
The present appeals arise from the following sequence of facts.
Resultantly, the application of the plaintiffs appellants for temporary injunction against the number applicants and the companynter temporary injunction application filed on behalf of the number applicants were partly allowed and it was ordered that till the decision of the original suit The applicants and number applicants number1 to 31 and the number applicants number36 to 43 shall number sell transfer the immovable properties as mentioned in Schedule Ka to Cha and number shall they create any substantial charge on the said properties.
Taking into companysideration that the dispute between the parties has arisen after the year 2007 and the cases are pending before the Company Law Board and if a restraint is number imposed upon the transfer of the aforesaid properties it will lead to multiplicity of litigation and the parties will entangle in litigation, the Lower Court observed that plaintiffs appellants have made out partially a prima facie case and held that the issue of balance of companyvenience and irreparable loss are in favour of the plaintiffs appellants.
The plaintiffs in the suit have also prayed for mandatory injunction seeking direction against the defendant companypanies alongwith other defendants to act upon the family settlement, alleged to have taken place on 20.12.2007 between the Niranjan Lal Data Group and Babu Lal Data Group, and have also sought the direction against the said companypanies to execute the documents and handover the possession of the properties of the said companypanies and firms etc.
Ltd., which is a companypany incorporated under the Companies Act, two partnership firms registered under the Partnership Act jointly and the HUF of Babulal, seeking partition of the properties mentioned in the Schedules annexed to the plaint and that too against the set of companypanies, which have been shown as the assets of the HUF.
Babulal along with Saurabh Agrotech Pvt.
The Lower Court numbericed that the properties which the plaintiffs presented in the Schedules Ka to Cha are basically immovable properties, companypanies and partnership firms regarding which both the parties have claimed ownership.
This companyrt also fails to understand as to how the alleged family settlement between the NLD Group and BLD Group would be binding to the defendant companypanies and firms, apart from the issue as to whether the alleged document dated 20.12.2007 companyld be called a family settlement.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court modified the interim order dated 10th February, 2011 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3 Jaipur Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur hereinafter referred to as, the Lower Court in Civil Misc.
Plaintiff Babulal though seeking partition of the joint family properties has number impleaded his own sons and other companyarceners as parties to the suit and has number included the properties owned and managed by the plaintiffs in the schedules annexed to the plaint.
The number applicants respondents herein made the following submissions The suit of the plaintiffs in the present form is number maintainable in the eyes of law, inasmuch as it has been filed by Sh.
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted.
Case No.36/2010, whereby the Lower Court partly allowed the application of the appellants original plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1,2 of CPC.
In these appeals the appellants have challenged the companymon judgment and order dated 14th March, 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Misc.
2218 of 2011 etc.
