Introduction:
The case before us is ULink AgriTech Private Ltd Vs SML Limited and Ors., which is a legal dispute that has been the subject of proceedings before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The case revolves around the grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunctions and the subsequent appeal against such orders. The appellant, ULink AgriTech Private Ltd, is contesting the interlocutory injunctions granted by the learned Single Judge in favor of the respondent, SML Limited and others.
Background:
The case appears to involve a dispute where the respondent sought and was granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction by the learned Single Judge. This injunction was granted without the appellant having the opportunity to be heard, which is a common practice when there is an urgency to prevent irreparable harm to one party. The appellant has filed an appeal against this order, arguing that the impugned order does not contain the necessary reasons as required by law, and thus, the injunction should not have been granted.
Relevant Provision of Law Applicable:
The relevant provisions of law applicable in this case are primarily from the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), particularly Order 39, which deals with temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders. Specifically, Rule 1 and Rule 2 of Order 39 CPC provide the mechanism for granting temporary injunctions, and Rule 3 deals with the service of notice to the opposite party. Additionally, the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 13(1A) provides for the appealability of certain orders, including ex-parte ad-interim injunctions.
Issue of the Case:
The central issue in this case is whether the learned Single Judge's order granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was made in compliance with the legal requirements, specifically whether the order contains the necessary reasons for the grant of the injunction. The appellant argues that the order does not meet the legal standards for the grant of such injunctions, and therefore, the order should be set aside.
Reason of Court:
The court, in its analysis, has considered the settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. It has emphasized the need for a court to record reasons before passing such orders and the importance of these reasons being more than a mere cursory reproduction of submissions. The court has also discussed the requirement of Rule 3 of Order 39 CPC, which mandates the serving of notice to the opposite party, and the consequences of non-compliance with this requirement.
Final Decision:
The court, after considering the arguments and the legal provisions, has decided that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not contain the requisite reasons for the grant of the ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The court has remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration, indicating that the original order does not comply with the legal standards for granting such injunctions. The court has not interfered with the discretion exercised by the learned trial Judge but has found that the order does not meet the necessary legal requirements, and thus, the appeal against the order is upheld to the extent that it is sent back for reconsideration.
Case Citation:ULink AgriTech Private Ltd Vs SML Limited and Ors: 20.08.2024:OSA No.5 of 2024: : 2024:HHC:7049: Himachal Pradesh High Court: Mamidanna Satya Ratna Sri Ramachandra Rao and e Satyen Vaidya. JJ
Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United
Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
