Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: _________________________________________________________________________________
1/8 (Charan Salwan)
CJ-03: Central: THC: Delhi.
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARAN SALWAN, CIVIL JUDGE-03,
DISTRICT CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ 490/25
GAURAV CHHIBBER Vs. FAM CO LLP
22.04.2025
O R D E R
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the instant application under
Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure’1908
(
hereinafter referred to as CPC) filed by the plaintiff against the
defendants praying for:
“i. Pass an interim injunction restraining the
defendants, particularly defendant no. 2, from
unlawfully withholding the Emirates ID of the plaintiff
and directing to immediately hand over the same;
ii. Restrain the defendants from imposing any
coercive or unlawful conditions, including signing a
closure of services agreement, as a precondition for
releasing the Emirates ID;
iii. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
2 (a). Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the
proprietor of M/s Ezee Flights Travel having its office at 20A, II
Floor, Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar, New Delhi – 110015 and the
-- 1 of 8 --
_________________________________________________________________________________
2/8 (Charan Salwan)
CJ-03: Central: THC: Delhi.
plaintiff has authorized Mr. Satpal Singh S/o Bhim Singh, working
as Manager to file the present suit on behalf of plaintiff vide Special
Power of Attorney
(in short SPA) dated 21.01.2025.
(b) It is averred that defendant no. 1 is a partnership firm and
defendant no. 2 is a partner of the partnership firm and primarily, the
firm operates as a Chartered Accountancy Firm offering services
such as accounting, audit and assurance, taxation, new business
setup, visa service and other allied services.
(c) It is averred that the plaintiff wanted to expand his business
and wanted to open an office in Dubai, UAE and for this reason,
defendant no. 3 in the month of December, 2024, approached the
plaintiff and introduced defendant no. 1 and 2 as professionals
specializing in business incorporation in Dubai, UAE. It is averred
that on the assurance given by defendant no. 3 the plaintiff agreed to
proceed with the services of defendant no. 1 and 2 and accepted their
quotation of AED 35,562 (approximately Rs. 8,38,000/-) for
incorporation of his company in Dubai, UAE, and visa processing
expenses. It is averred that the plaintiff made an advance payment of
Rs. 6 Lakhs in the account of defendant no. 1 and submitted all
necessary documents specified by the defendant. It is averred that
after receiving the payments, the defendant started delaying the
matter.
(d) It is averred that after several requests and follow ups,
defendant No.1 and defendant No. 2 got issued visa of the plaintiff.
It is averred that the plaintiff arrived in Dubai on 07.02.2025 and
was accompanied by Mr. Abbu Affan Taha, an agent of defendant
-- 2 of 8 --
_________________________________________________________________________________
3/8 (Charan Salwan)
CJ-03: Central: THC: Delhi.
no. 1 to various government offices to facilitate the incorporation of
his company. It is averred that the plaintiff also paid an additional
amount of AED 15,140/- (approximately Rs. 3,61,643/-). It is
averred that on 10.02.2025 the defendant informed the plaintiff that
his temporary emirates UID had been issued by the Government of
Dubai and informed the plaintiff that he had to stay in Dubai for an
additional two days, to which the plaintiff refused but agreed to
revisit Dubai for biometric appointment.
(e) It is averred that the incorporation of plaintiff’s company was
completed on 10.02.2025. It is averred that the entire process of
incorporation was full of hardships and inconvenience due to the
inefficiency of defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff decided to
discontinue the services of the defendant by email dated 02.03.2025
and made the entire remaining payment of the defendant and
informed the defendants that he would handle the biometric
appointment on 11.03.2025 independently.
(f) It is averred that on 11.03.2025, the plaintiff traveled back to
Dubai to attend his biometric appointment and due to unprofessional
conduct of the defendant, the defendant was compelled to incur an
additional amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs. It is averred that vide email dated
15.03.2025 the defendant informed the plaintiff that his emirates ID
card was successfully issued by the Government of Dubai and
instead of handing over the ID card to the plaintiff refused to release
it unless the plaintiff signed a
‘closure of services agreement’.
(g) It is averred that the plaintiff was highly dissatisfied with the
defendant’s services and accordingly, refused to sign the agreement
-- 3 of 8 --
_________________________________________________________________________________
4/8 (Charan Salwan)
CJ-03: Central: THC: Delhi.
and asserted that the emirates ID is his legal property and it is
unlawful for the defendant to withhold or impose conditions on the
release of an official identity document of the plaintiff. It is averred
that due to the refusal of the defendant to handover the emirates ID
the plaintiff has instituted the present suit. Hence, the present suit
has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:
“i. Pass a mandatory injunction directing the
defendants, particularly defendant no. 2, to
immediately hand over the Emirates ID of the plaintiff,
which has been unlawfully withheld, despite being the
legal property of the plaintiff;
ii. Pass a permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from imposing any unlawful conditions,
including the signing of a closure of services
agreement precondition for the release of the Emirates
ID,
iii. Pass a decree for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees
Two Lakh Only) against the defendants jointly and
severally for causing financial losses to the plaintiff
iv. Award costs of litigation:
v. Any other order/ direction that this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. The plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXXIX
Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim injunction. It is stated that if the
-- 4 of 8 --
_________________________________________________________________________________
5/8 (Charan Salwan)
CJ-03: Central: THC: Delhi.
injunction is not granted in favour of the plaintiff the plaintiff would
suffer an irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in
terms of money. It is stated that the balance of convenience also lies
in favour of the plaintiff.
4. In its reply, the defendants have denied the contents of the
application of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC
and have prayed that the application be dismissed.
5. In the written statement
(in short WS) the defendants have
denied the contents of the plaint and have stated that the suit of the
plaintiff is not maintainable. Briefly stated, the defence of the
defendants is that after completion of creation of LLC, the plaintiff
was supposed to sign the
‘closure of services agreement’ in order to
complete the assignment and for collection of Emirates ID of the
plaintiff from Dubai. It is stated that the plaintiff has deliberately
and with malafide intention not done so. It is further submitted that
as per the communication between plaintiff and defendant, the
plaintiff was supposed to sign on
‘closure of services agreement’.
6. Record Perused. Arguments heard.
7. Before delving into the particular facts and arguments
addressed in this interim application, it is pertinent to understand the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court w.r.t Order 39 Rule 1
& 2 CPC.
8. In the case of
Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co.
(1995 5 SCC 545), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while discussing the
-- 5 of 8 --
_________________________________________________________________________________
6/8 (Charan Salwan)
CJ-03: Central: THC: Delhi.
factors to be considered by the Courts in exercise of the discretion
under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, has held that:
“The grant of an interlocutory injunction during the
pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring
the exercise of discretion of the Court. While
exercising the discretion, the Court applies the
following tests:
(i)
Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case;
(ii)
Whether the balance of convenience is in the favour
of the plaintiff;
(iii)
Whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable
injury if his prayer for interlocutory is disallowed.”
9. Vide the instant application the plaintiff has sought the relief
of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to handover the
emirates ID of the plaintiff and has further sought an injunction
restraining the defendants from imposing any coercive or unlawful
conditions including signing of a
‘closure of services agreement’ as
a pre-condition for releasing the Emirates ID.
10. It is a settled law that for seeking an interim mandatory
injunction the plaintiff is required to show
‘strong prima facie’ case
in its favour. In the instant matter, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for
the plaintiff that the defendants have wrongfully withheld the
Emirates ID of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the defendant is
liable to return the Emirates ID of the plaintiff as it is the identity
card of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has relied upon two grounds for
return of the Emirates ID i.e.
firstly, there is a chance of misuse of
the ID card of the plaintiff by the defendant and
secondly, the
-- 6 of 8 --
_________________________________________________________________________________
7/8 (Charan Salwan)
CJ-03: Central: THC: Delhi.
plaintiff requires the ID card for setting up his business in Dubai.
11. On court proceedings dated 29.03.2025, the defendant no. 2
has already undertaken not to use the plaintiff’s Emirates ID card in
any manner and has guaranteed that it will be in safe custody of the
defendants. Separate statement to this effect has been recorded by
the defendant no. 2.
12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the plaintiff has
failed to show a
‘strong prima facie’ case in its favour for seeking
the relief of interim mandatory injunction directing the defendant to
return the Emirates ID card of the plaintiff. The defendant no. 2 has
already undertaken to keep the Emirates ID card in safe custody and
has undertaken not to misuse the ID card. The plaintiff has not
produced any document showing the requirement of the emirates ID
card for setting up the business. Furthermore, whether or not the
custody of the Emirates ID card with defendant no. 2 is wrongful is a
question of trial and whether or not signing of ‘closure of service
agreement’ by the plaintiff is a pre-condition for release of the
Emirates ID card is a question of trial and can be decided after
appreciation of evidence.
13. Since the first ingredient of ‘strong prima facie’ case itself is
not satisfied, discussion on the remaining ingredients, i.e.
‘irreparable loss’ and ‘balance of convenience’ is inconsequential
and hence, not warranted.
14. Accordingly, the instant application u/o XXXIX Rule 1& 2
CPC is dismissed.
-- 7 of 8 --
_________________________________________________________________________________
8/8 (Charan Salwan)
CJ-03: Central: THC: Delhi.
15. Instant application is accordingly disposed of in aforesaid
terms.
16. It is clarified that any observations arrived at herein shall have
no bearings on the merits of the case.
(Charan Salwan)
CJ-03: Central: THC: Delhi.
22.04.2025
-- 8 of 8 --