LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

M/s Empee Distilleries Limited & Ors. v. M/s Gimpex Private Ltd. & Anr.

Civil Appeal · 2018 INSC 857Decided 24 Sept 2018
Civil Appeal No. 9865 of 2018
Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre · Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Background

A commercial dispute arose over coal-supply transactions, with the plaintiff suing the defendant distillery companies for recovery of about Rs. 19.5 crore. The plaintiff obtained an ex-parte interim prohibitory order restraining a third party (TASMAC, which allegedly owed the defendants about Rs. 24 crore) from paying the defendants, to secure the plaintiff's claim amount. The defendants' attempt to vacate this order failed before both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, leading them to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court declined to rule on whether the prohibitory order itself satisfied the legal requirements of Order 37 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, since the underlying suit was still at an early stage (no written statement filed, trial not begun) and any factual observations could prejudice the parties. Instead, it accepted the defendants' alternative request to convert the restraint into a security arrangement: the appeal was disposed of by directing the defendants to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 10 crore and solvent security for the balance of the suit amount within three months, on compliance with which the prohibitory order would stand set aside. The trial court was asked to decide the underlying suit on its merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a year, uninfluenced by the Supreme Court's order.

Lesson Learnt

When a dispute is only at the interim-relief stage and the main suit hasn't gone to trial, courts often prefer a practical middle path, like converting a freezing/prohibitory order into a bank guarantee or security deposit, rather than deciding disputed facts or legal questions prematurely, which protects both the claimant's interest and the defendant's ability to access funds.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case