1 72-chs-1244-08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1244 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 83 OF 2006. M/s. Achra Investments Pvt. Ltd. ..Plaintiff. vs. Gul Kachharam Achra & Ors. ..Defendants. And ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors. ..Proposed Defendants. .... Mr. N.R. Bubna, for Plaintiff. Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Counsel, a/w. Ms. Alpana Ghone, i/b. Kanga & Co., for Defendant Nos. 3 to 7. Mr. N.J. Rathani,, i/b. Ashwin Ankhad, for Defendant Nos. 1 & 2. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 11TH APRIL 2011. P.C. : By this Chamber Summons, the Plaintiff has prayed for permission to amend the present Suit by adding names of the proposed Defendant Nos. 1 to 29 in the cause title as Defendant Nos. 8 to 36 and by inserting paragraph 26A and prayer clause c(v), d(i) and e(vii) as stated in the schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons. 2. The above Suit is filed by the Plaintiff for a declaration that the Plaintiff is the exclusive and absolute owner of the 990 shares in Defendant No.3 and that the same have been fraudulently transferred in favour of the Defendant No.1 and/or Defendant No.4. Reliefs consequent to the alleged fraudulent transfer have also been 2 72-chs-1244-08 claimed. 3. The Plaintiff also took out Notice of Motion No. 423 of 2006 in the above Suit inter alia seeking to restrain the Defendants from alienating, transferring, encumbering and /or parting with possession of various properties of the Defendant No.3. The said Notice of Motion was disposed of by an order of this court [Coram : S. J. Vazifdar, J.] dated 11th September 2007 wherein the learned Judge recorded that as far the order restraining the Defendants from dealing with the property of the Defendant No.3 is concerned, the same is covered against the Plaintiffs inter alia by an order passed by this Court [Coram :D.K. Deshmukh, J.] dated 25th April 2005 in a group of Notice of Motions, the first of which is Notices of Motion No. 3264 of 2004 in Suit No. 3166 of 2004 wherein the learned Judge has held that in the facts of this case, there would be no question of granting any injunction, as even if the Plaintiffs are held to be the holders of 990 shares, they would not get any interest in the property of the company. Therefore, the only relief granted by the learned Single Judge by his said order dated 11th September 2007 was a direction to the Defendants not to dispose of, alienate, encumber or part with possession of the said 990 shares pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit without first informing the purchaser of the pendency of the Suit in writing. The Appeal preferred therefrom by the Plaintiff was allowed to be withdrawn by an order dated 25th April 2008. 4. By the present Chamber Summons, the Plaintiff is now seeking reliefs against the persons who have taken premises in the property owned by the Defendant No.3. What the Plaintiff is therefore once again trying to do is to indirectly seek reliefs against 3 72-chs-1244-08 the property of the Defendant No.3 which relief he had sought in Notice of Motion No. 423 of 2006 and was rejected. 5. In view thereof, the parties who are sought to be joined by the Plaintiffs in the above Chamber Summons are neither necessary nor proper parties and their presence is not required for determination of the issues raised in this Suit. The Chamber Summons is therefore dismissed with costs. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]