Civil Revision No.5913 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5913 of 2007 Date of decision 24.4.2009. M/s Hans Food Products, Khunda Road, Dhariwal. ...... petitioner. versus State Bank of India ...... Respondent Present : Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K.Arora, Advocate for the respondent. L.N.MITTAL,J.(Oral) This is revision petition by plaintiff M/s Hans Food Products, (in short – Food Products), a partnership firm through its authorized partner- Ranjan Vohra impugning order dated 24.10.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional District Judge, (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur. The plaintiff raised term loan of Rs.90.00 lacs and was also granted cash credit limit of Rs.50.00 lacs, by the defendant-respondent bank i.e. State Bank of India on 11.10.2005. On the same date, a sum of Rs.37.00 lacs was transferred from the account of the petitioner to the account of M/s Hans Food Commission Agent ( in short -Commission Agent) of which Ranjan Vohra is sole proprietor. Thereafter, on the same Civil Revision No.5913 of 2007 2 date, on the basis of two cheques allegedly issued by Ranjan Vohra as proprietor of Commission Agent, the said amount of Rs.37.00 lacs was transferred to the account of another sister concern M/s Hans Rice Mills ( in short – Rice Mill) in which also Ranjan Vohra is partner. The petitioner by filing suit challenged the transfer of Rs.37.00 lacs from its account to the account of Commission Agent. The petitioner sought temporary injunction during pendency of the suit restraining the respondent from demanding or recovering aforesaid amount of Rs.37.00 lacs and interest thereon. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur vide order dated 23.12.2006 (Annexure P-1) allowed the application of the petitioner-plaintiff for temporary injunction. However, appeal preferred by the respondent has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur vide impugned order dated 24.10.2007 (Annexure P-2) and order of the trial Court has been set aside. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. On the preceding date of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent was granted adjournment to find out as to on whose instructions the amount of Rs.37.00 lacs was transferred from the account of the petitioner to the account of the Commission Agent. Learned counsel for the respondent, after seeking instructions from the respondent, states that the said amount was transferred from the account of the petitioner to the account of Commission Agent on the basis of two debit vouchers signed Civil Revision No.5913 of 2007 3 by Ranjan Vohra on behalf of the petitioner-firm. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondent has not pleaded in the written statement that the amount of Rs.37.00 lacs was transferred from the account of the petitioner to the account of the Commission Agent on the basis of any such debit vouchers or transfer vouchers. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that although it has not been so expressly pleaded in the written statement but there is implied plea to this effect in the written statement. In addition thereto, it is also contended that this plea was specifically raised before the lower Appellate Court. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. For the purpose of temporary injunction, the petitioner has to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss and injury if temporary injunction is not granted. Even presuming for a moment that there is no specific plea raised by respondent in the written statement regarding debit vouchers, the balance of convenience would not be in favour of the petitioner nor it can be said that the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss or injury if the temporary injunction is not granted. Reason for the same is that the amount of Rs.37.00 lacs has not been usurped by the respondent. It has been credited by the respondent in the account of Rice Mills. Ranjan Vohra is partner in firm Rice Mills as well. It is also not disputed that amount was due to the respondent-bank from M/s Rice Mills. Thus, the amount of the petitioner-firm has been utilized in satisfying the liability of its sister concern M/s Rice Mills in which also Ranjan Vohra is a Civil Revision No.5913 of 2007 4 partner. Consequently, the petitioner also does not have even a prima facie case nor balance of convenience in its favour nor it would suffer irreparable loss or injury if temporary injunction is not granted because if the petitioner is granted adjustment of Rs.37.00 lacs in its favour, the corresponding amount has to be debited in the account of M/s Rice Mills and the liability of Ranjan Vohra would still subsist being partner in both firms. Other partners are also family members and these are all sister concerns. The plea of respondent that the amount was transferred from the account of petitioner firm to the account of Commission Agent on the basis of transfer vouchers also cannot be outrightly discarded at this stage for the purpose of temporary injunction merely on the ground that no such specific plea has been taken in the written statement, because it has been pleaded that the amount was transferred on the instructions of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the term loan of Rs.90.00 lacs was sanctioned for purchase of machinery and, therefore, could not be utilized by transferring the same to the account of another sister concern. However, this contention also cannot be accepted at this stage for purpose of temporary injunction because it was allegedly so done by the consent of both the parties. In view of aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, expressly made clear that nothing observed hereinabove shall influence the trial Court while finally disposing of the suit. Civil Revision No.5913 of 2007 5 The trial Court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously. ( L.N.MITTAL ) JUDGE April 24, 2009 sv