1

IN THE HONBLE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE

NEW DELHI DISTICT COURTS
PATIALA HOUSE COMPLEX NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NOOF 2012
IN THE MATTER OF
M/s. TRACTEL TIRFOR INDIA PVT LTD

PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
ICICI BANK LTD & ANOTHER

DEFENDANTS

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READWITH

SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908 FOR ADINTERIM INJUNCTION
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the plaintiff have instituted the present suit for declaration,
cancellation, permanent and mandatory injunctions against the
defendants in respect of the sale of equity shares numbering
34001 to 44000 under the Share Certificate no 55 issued by Dr.
PK Chakarvarty on behalf of the plaintiff company .

2. That the contents of the plaint/suit are urged as part of this

application and the same may kindly be treated as such in as
much as the same have not been repeated herein for the sake of
brevity.

3. That the plaintiff company is the lawful owner and has the absolute
rights in the equity shares numbering 34001 to 44000 under the
share certificate no 55 issued by the plaintiff company.

4.

That the defendant no 1 has illegally executed a share transfer

instrument dated 29.01.2010 in favour of Defendant no 2 who in
turn sent it for approval and transfer

5. That as it has further transpired that the defendant no. 1 acting in

collusion with, defendant No. 2 and with a view to usurp the
above shares of the plaintiff company has executed a sham and
collusive share transfer instrument dated 29.01.2010 in favour of
the defendant no 2 despite the fact that defendant No. 1 had no
right, claim or interest in it after receiving Rs 241 lakhs under
OTS scheme.

6. That defendant No. 1 and 2 on the basis of this sham and collusive
sale instrument, wanted to defraud Plaintiff Company, by
asserting false statement of facts about the ownership and
possession of the above mentioned shares. It is pertinent to
mention here that the defendants have also approached the
Plaintiff Company to transfer those shares in favour of defendant
no 2 on the basis of this sham and false shares transfer instrument.

7. That the Plaintiff Company has sent legal notice to the defendant No.
1 and 2 as soon as it has come to know about the creation of sham
sale instruments. The Plaintiff have also sent several reminders
about its objection and questioned the competence of the

defendant no 1 to execute the share transfer instrument. However

the defendant no. 1 has till date did not replied to the said notices
of the plaintiff company to the best reason known to them.

8. That Plaintiff Company submits that the defendant No. 1 & 2 have
no right, title or interest overs the above shares of the plaintiff
company. The defendants are bent upon in defeating the rights of
the plaintiff to the said shares. If the defendants succeed in their
designs, the plaintiff company is likely to suffer an irreparable
loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of
damages.

9. That the malafide intentions of the defendants in transferring the

above shares is all apparent, because it was well within the
knowledge of the defendant no .1 that the direct equity
subscription has become redundant after the BIFR order dated
11.07.1996. The defendant no1 has received the OTS amount of
Rs. 441 Lakhs and now it was left with no rights in the shares
under equity share certificate no 55.

10. That Plaintiff Company submits that it has reasonable apprehensions

that if these share transfer instrument is left alive, it may be used
for the purpose of creating a third party interest in the shares of
the plaintiff company, depriving the Plaintiff Company its rightful
claim therein.

11. That the Plaintiff Company has got a good prima facie case in its
favour and most likely to succeed before this Hon'ble Court. The

balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff

Company and against the defendants in as much as in the event of
grant of injunction against the defendants, no prejudice is likely to
be caused while to the contrary a serious prejudice would be
caused to the rights of the plaintiff company if the injunction
sought for is not granted.
PRAYER

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is therefore, most

respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may kindly be pleased to:

a) Grant ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the defendant no. 1

and 2, their legal heirs, assignees, nominees, agents, and/or their
representatives or any person acting for and in the name of
defendants from dispossessing and interfering in ownerships, rights
and claims use and enjoyment of the numbering 34001 to 44000
issued under equity share certificate no. 55 by the plaintiff company.

b) Grant ad interim injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 and 2

from creating any third party interest in the above shares of the
Plaintiff Company.

c) Grant ad interim injunction directing defendant No.1 not to deliver

up the physical custody of the above shares executed by defendant
no.1 in favour of defendant no. 2 and/or not to register any

transfer/sale deed in respect of the above shares before any share

trading authority/agency during the pendency of suit.

d) Pass such other and/or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the
interest of justice.
It is prayed accordingly.

Plaintiff
Authorized Representative

Through Counsel

KALYAN DUTT
Advocate,
163, Lawyers Chamber
Delhi High Court New Delhi
9818361786
PLACE: NEW DELHI.
DATED:

IN THE HONBLE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE

NEW DELHI DISTICT COURTS PATIALA HOUSE
COMPLEX NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO.

OF 2012

IN THE MATTER OF
M/s. TRACTEL TIRFOR INDIA PVT LTD
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ICICI BANK LTD & ANOTHER

DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION

I, SURESH UNIAL S/o Late R P Uniyal C/o 302, Harsha Bhawan 64-65,
Nehru Place, New Delhi aged about 45 years do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under :-

1. That the deponent is the authorized representative of the plaintiff company

in the abovementioned suit and is well conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the case and is as such competent to swear the present
affidavit.

2. That the accompanying application under Order 39 rule 1 & 2 r/w section
151 of Civil Procedure Code seeking ad interim injunction has been drafted
by his counsel under his instructions. The contents of which have been read
and understood and found the same to be correct, which are not reproduced

herein for the sake of brevity and same may be read as part and parcel of
this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this.day of September, 2012 that contents of

above affidavit are true to the knowledge of the deponent. No part of it is
false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT