http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: DR. RAJESHWAR KUMAR MALHOTRA & ANR. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M/S.LLOYD ELECTRIC ENGINEERING LTD. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/12/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                CIVIL APPEAL NO.16990 OF 1996           (Arising out of SLP (C)No.22769 of 1996)                          O R D E R      Leave granted .      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      Intervention is permitted .      These appeals  by special leave arise from the order of the High  Court of  Rajasthan, made  on October  24, 1996 in Revision Petition  No.715/96. One  matter relates to the two individuals, i.e.,  appellants in  appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.  22164, namely,  Dr. Rajeshwar  Kumar  Malhotra  and S.Srinivasan. This  Court on  November 26,1996  directed  as under:      "We do  not find  any substance  in      the   appeal    as   regards    the      injunction against  the  individual      petitioner  is  concerned.  But  as      regards the  injunction against the      Company Shri  Salve, learned senior      counsel    appearing     for    the      respondents  seeks   for   and   is      granted one  week’s time  as to how      the  injunction   requires  to   be      modulated."          Accordingly, the  matter was adjourned. Today, Shri Soli J.Sorabjee,  learned senior  counsel appearing  for the appellant in  appeal arising  out of  SLP  (C)  No.22769/96, namely, appeal  filed by the company has  stated that in the rejoinder affidavit,  the appellant   has  stated  that  the aforestated two  persons resigned  from the respective posts held by them in the company. As a result, they are no longer continuing in  the   company. It  is also  pointed out  that share held by  the different groups as stated at page 148 of the additional  paper-book filed in this case, are different and varied.  So, no  injunction can  be granted  against the company much  less due to the change in the circumstance. We find force  in the  contention. Though  the learned  counsel appearing for  the respondents,  Sri Harish  Salve, seeks to contend that  the bank  had granted  loan to  the appellants

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

with a  condition that  the aforestated two persons would be required to continue to work in the company. Therefore it is only a  make-believe show  to  see  that  no  injunction  is granted against the company  and the one granted against the company and  the one   granted by the High Court is vacated. We do  not find   any justification for the contention as on today. If  the two persons really still work for the company in   any  form  and  in  any  manner,  it  is  open  to  the respondents to  approach the  trial  Court  for  appropriate relief. As  facts stand  today, injunction  granted  by  the High Court against the company is not warranted.      The appeals are accordingly allowed with the above liberty. The injunction order granted against the company stands dissolve. No costs.