KUNDAN SINGH, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these Appeal From Orders arise out of the order dated 17. 5. 97 passed below exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 80 of 1996 by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.), Gandhidham and therefore, they are being decided and disposed of by this common judgment. By the said order, the learned trial Court has allowed the application of the original plaintiff Eisenberg and Company U. S. A. Agency and whereby the the original defendant nos. 1 Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. , defendant no. 2 Arvind V Joshi and Company and Specials Trading (hereinafter referred to as the defendant nos. 1,2 and 3) have been restrained from entering into any transaction with respect to 13976 Mts. of used rail lines lying in bonded godown at Kandla Port Trust and defendant nos. 4 and 5 Port Officer, Kandla and Assistant Collector, Kandla Port respectively have been directed not to permit the defendant nos. 1 to 3 for delivery of the said goods till the final disposal of the suit. The ogiginal plaintiff Eisenberg and Company has preferred Appeal From Order No. 290 of 1997, and has prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants and/or their agents from interfering in any manner dealing with cargos of 13976 Mts. of used rails lying at Kandla Port in the customs bonded area by the plaintiff, taking physical possession thereof or clearing or selling the same. The plaintiff has also prayed in its application exh. 5 for a direction to the defendants and their agents, officers and agents to hand over to the plaintiff all the documents and things in relation to the goods necessary for the said purpose, pending the final disposal of the suit, whereas Shrichakra Specials Trading Co.-original defendant no. 1 has filed Appeal From Order No. 283 of 1997 challenging the impugned order. ( 2 ) THE plaintiffs case in short is that the plaintiff is a registered company in USA. The defendant no. 1 is a private limited company in India carrying on business at Gandhidham. The defendant no. 2 is a licensed clearing and forwarding shipping agent at Kandla Port and Kandla Port Free Trade Zone. The defendant no. 3 is a company of USA. The defendant no. 4 is a Port Officer in charge of Kandla Port wherein the goods in question are stored. The defendant no. The defendant no. 2 is a licensed clearing and forwarding shipping agent at Kandla Port and Kandla Port Free Trade Zone. The defendant no. 3 is a company of USA. The defendant no. 4 is a Port Officer in charge of Kandla Port wherein the goods in question are stored. The defendant no. 5 is an Assistant Collector of Customs in charge of areaof Kandla Port. In January 1996, the defendant no. 3 proposed a joint business adventure to be undertaken with the plaintiff. The plaintiff was to purchase rails from a seller identified by the defendant no. 3 and the defendant no. 3 was to identify the customers and dispose of the goods. The defendant no. 3 assured that the amount spent by the plaintiff would be recovered with adequate margin of profit within 40 to 45 days. The plaintiff being new in this business, accepted its assurance. It was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 3 that the plaintiff would purchase used rails and goods would be exported by a ship by the defendant no. 3 to Kandla. The defendant would directly or through its associates including the defendant no. 1 would dispose of. As per the understanding, the plaintiff opened a letter of credit in favour of the seller in the Standard Chartered Bank on 2. 4. 96. Both the parties entered into an agreement dated 9. 4. 96. The defendant no. 3 was to negotiate with customers in India. Asper the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff discharged its obligation by opening a letter of credit making payment to the seller for the goods in question. The plaintiff got the goods insured through M/s. Johnson and Hingis of New York which issued "confirmation of insurance" for the insurance of the cargo. The insurance was provided by the insurance company of America in New York. The used rails being 14961. 31 Mts. was loaded onto vessel Jennifer of St. Petersburg, Russia. The bill of Lading was issued by Hawknet Ltd wherein the defendant no. 3 was shown as a shipper while the plaintiff was shown as a consignee and notified address of the defendant no. 2 was given. The export invoice dated 26. 4. 96 was issued by All-Rad, German company in favour of the plaintiff. The packing list was also issued in the similar manner in respect of the cargo. 3 was shown as a shipper while the plaintiff was shown as a consignee and notified address of the defendant no. 2 was given. The export invoice dated 26. 4. 96 was issued by All-Rad, German company in favour of the plaintiff. The packing list was also issued in the similar manner in respect of the cargo. In compliance of the instructions of the plaintiff the defendant no. 3 purchased the cargo. The plaintiff directed the defendant no. 3 by a letter dated 9. 5. 96 for the opening of a letter of credit in the Standard Chartered Bank in favour of the plaintiff for the collection of the payment. The defendant no. 3 showed some difficulties in the import of goods in India and requested for the change of name of consignee " To order". The plaintiff could not realise the conspiracy hatched upon to defraud it by the defendant no. 3. The plaintiff surrendered the original bills of Lading to the ship owner and got issued amended 15 bills of Lading bearing the same date 16. 4. 96 for the entire goods and they were sent to the defendant no. 2 at the request of the defendant no. 3. The defendant no. 2 by a letter dated 28. 5. 1996 assured the plaintiff that it would act as a trustee and to maintain the title of the plaintiff for a particular period and the cargo would not be removed without prior direction of the plaintiff. Some communication also took place between the parties regarding disposal of the goods and its delay. The defendant no. 3 informed the plaintiff that thecargo would get berth on 28/29th June, 1996. Its unloading would stasrt on 9. 7. 97 and it would be stored in open customs bonded area in the name of the plaintiff. Cutting, process and finalisation of the contract with the customers would be done within three weeks. The defendant no. 3 asked the plaintiff to direct the defendant no. 2 for release of the specified quantity of the cargo. Some communication between the parties took place regarding huge financial loss due to delay to the plaintiff. The defendant no. 2 assured the plaintiff to act as its trustee and hold title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff directed the defendant no. 3 asked the plaintiff to direct the defendant no. 2 for release of the specified quantity of the cargo. Some communication between the parties took place regarding huge financial loss due to delay to the plaintiff. The defendant no. 2 assured the plaintiff to act as its trustee and hold title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff directed the defendant no. 2 confirmed that the cargo was lying in the bonded area of the customs department, security of the port,defendant nos. 2 and 1. On the plaintiffs direction, 1000 Mts. of the goods was released in favour of the defendant no. 1. Then the plaintiff could understand that Mr. Parekh, Director of the defendant no. 3 was a business associate of the defendant no. 1 and is director, share holder or representative of both the companies. For that purpose, the plaintiff was kept in dark. The defendant no. 3 by its letter dated 12. 8. 96 gave out several excuses and deadline terms for the disposal of thegoods. The defendant no. 3 by its letter dated 4. 9. 96 showed various problems in discharging its obligation and asked for some time to fulfil its obligation. The plaintiff received a letter dated 14. 9. 96 of the defendant no. 2 that the cargo had been shifted to the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant no. 2. Then the plaintiff received reply of the notice on 16. 10. 96 wherein the defendant no. 2 treated the defendant no. 1 as owner of the cargo on the basis of the papers in which the defendant no. 1 was mentioned as consignee of the goods and it also disclaimed the title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are related firms and one Mr. K. P. Manek acts on behalf of both the firms defendant nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff had a reason to believe that conspiracy has been hatched upon to defraud the plaintiff by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and their mischevious acts amounted to breach of the contract. The suit has been filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking over the possession and from disposing of the goods in any manner and injunction against the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and their mischevious acts amounted to breach of the contract. The suit has been filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking over the possession and from disposing of the goods in any manner and injunction against the defendant nos. 4 and 5 not to permit the defendants to remove the goods and for a direction to the defendants to hand over the original papers of the goods for its disposal. The plaintiff by the application exh. 5 sought for interim order in the same manner. ( 3 ) THE defendant no. 1 Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. filed objections, two affidavits of Shri Harshendu Vaidya on behalf of the defendant no. 2 and other papers in support of its claim. In the objections, the defendant no. 1 alleged that the plaintiffs version is wholly untrue, false, frivolous, fabricated and vexatious. The suit and the injunction application are not tenable, without jurisdiction, illegal due to non-service of legal service on the Port authorities. The deal of the plaintiff and the defendant no. 3 is not binding on the defendant no. 1 as both the companies are based on USA law and they are not covered under the Indian law. The defendant nos. 1 and 3 entered into an agreement on 28. 9. 95 much prior to the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 3. The defenant no. 3 was the purchaser in the agreement dated 9. 4. 96 between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 3. The allegations made in the plaint and injunction application are denied. In 15 bills of Lading issued by Hawknet, the defendant no. 3 was shown as a shipper and consignee was "to order" and the notified address was of the defendant no. 1. The bill of Lading is governed by English law where the disputes are to be settled by arbitration in accordance with English law. The draft surveyreport does not mention the name of the plaintiff or the defendant no. 2 whereas, there is only the name of the defendant no. 3. In all the 15 invoices, the defendant no. 1 is shown as a consignee. The packing list was in the name of the defendant no. 1 as consignee while the defendant no. 3 was shown as an exporter. The cargo was exported by the defendant no. 3 to the defendant no. 3. In all the 15 invoices, the defendant no. 1 is shown as a consignee. The packing list was in the name of the defendant no. 1 as consignee while the defendant no. 3 was shown as an exporter. The cargo was exported by the defendant no. 3 to the defendant no. 1 from Russia to India. The defendant no. 2 had no right to hold the cargo as a trustee of the plaintiff. In the bills of Lading, the invoice, packing list, draft survey reports, certificate of quality and quantity which were sent for collection at Kandla Port through Corporation Bank, Gandhidham. The defendant no. 3 was shown as exporter and the defendant no. 1 as a consignee. The cargo arrived at Kandla on 9. 6. 96 and it took berth on 28. 6. 96. The defendant no. 2 is a clearing, forwarding and shipping agent only which worked for and on behalf of the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff has not filed any evidence to show that it opened letter of Credit. The defendant no. 3 never requested the plaintiff to send original bills of Lading to defendant no. 2. The original bills of Lading were given by the defendant no. 1 to M/s. Admiral Shipping Company, Gandhidham which is an agent of Hawknet Ltd. The defendant no. 2 was only a stevedore of the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff had no right to instruct the defendant no. 2 which had no right to hold cargo as the plaintiffs trustee. As per the condition, the defendant no. 1 had not paid any amount, but the documents were released on bank guarantee. The plaintiff has no right on the cargo, eventhen the plaintiff prefers to dispute, a representative is at liberty. The plaintiff has no right, ownership, lien or claim on the cargo. The defendant no. 1 is the owner as it obtained all original documents through Corporation Bank, Gandhidham by giving guarantee. The defendant no. 1 has alreadysigned bills of exchange of guarantee of US dollars 1645735. 35 in favour of the defendant no. 3. The plaintiff has not paid the cost of cargo while the defendant no. 1 has paid to the defendant no. 3 and discounted the bill of exchange. There is no evidence to show that the plaintiff has paid huge amount for the goods. The defendant no. 1 is suffering huge loss and hardship. 3. The plaintiff has not paid the cost of cargo while the defendant no. 1 has paid to the defendant no. 3 and discounted the bill of exchange. There is no evidence to show that the plaintiff has paid huge amount for the goods. The defendant no. 1 is suffering huge loss and hardship. In the agreement between the defendant nos. 1 and 3, there is no right, title, interest or claim of the plaintiff. The cargo is under the control of the defendant no. 1 at Kandla. No cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint for filing of the suit. The Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The defendant no. 3 entered into a contract with the defendant no. 1. The same was sent by mail which was signed by the defendant no. 1 at Mumbai at registered office at Mumbai. ( 4 ) IT is undisputed that 14961. 23 Mts. of used rail was purchased from AGAT, a German company in St. Petersburg, Russia through All-Rad, a German company. The sale price was to be deposited with Lakefield Ltd. , a Belgium company, registered in Ireland. The whole consideration was paid by Eisenberg and Company and extra expenditure was also borne out by the plaintiff. The vessel Jennifer was engaged through Hawknet, a London Shipping company for transportation from Russia to India. The plaintiff also got the Cargo insured. The vessel sailed on 17. 4. 96 to its destination and it reached at Kandla port of Kandla district on 28. 6. 96. Since then it is under the custody of the defendant nos. 4 and 5. Now both the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 are claiming ownership over the cargo. ( 5 ) THE main contention of the defendant no. 1 Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. is that the Cargo was purchased by Specials Trading Company, USA and filed photostat copies and various documents showing that it was the Specials Trading Company, USA which was the purchaser and owner of the Cargo and Specials Trading Company, USA has sold the Cargo to the defendant no. 1 Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. . As such, Shrichakra Specials Trading (I) Pvt. Ltd. alone is entitled for its possession and sale. The plaintiff is a financing company and financed the deal and it is not concerned with the ownership or title of the goods. 1 Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. . As such, Shrichakra Specials Trading (I) Pvt. Ltd. alone is entitled for its possession and sale. The plaintiff is a financing company and financed the deal and it is not concerned with the ownership or title of the goods. ( 6 ) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. that the goods in question were purchased on 21. 2. 96 originally by the defendant no. 3 from a company operating under the name and style of Lakefield Investment company, Dublin, Ireland. That was an associate company of AGAT, in Russia which was the original supplier of the goods. The contract dated 21. 2. 1996 shows that the respondent no. 3 was the purchaser of the said goods and said Lakefield Investment Company as a seller of the same. The purchaser of the goods from Lakefield Investment company was the respondent no. 3 and not All-Rad, Germany. The defendant no. 3 sold the goods to the defendant no. 1. Thus, the title of the goods has been passed to the defendant no. 1 through the original defendant no. 3. All-Rad was a financing company and it financed the goods in question. It was not the purchaser. All Rad financed the transaction only for a short time as "bridge Finance" The defendant no. 3 was in short of finance and offered the plaintiff to finance the deal and to pay off and discharge the obligation of All Rad Co. For that purpose the plaintiff accepted the deal in terms and conditions of the Agreement dated 9. 4. 96 arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 3. Thus, the plaintiff stepped into the shows of All Rad Co. The status of the plaintiff was only of a financier as All Rad was. The plaintiff never became owner. The defendant no. 3 sold goods to the defendant no. 1, as such, the defendant no. 1 Srichakra Specials Trading Co. has become the owner of the goods. Shrichakra Specials Trading Company in support of its claim referred the memo of agreement dated 9. 4. 1996 between plaintiff and respondent no. 3 to show that the plaintiff financed the deal in question. As such, the plaintiff could not become the owner of the goods in question. He also referred the sale confirmation contracts dated 10. 7. Shrichakra Specials Trading Company in support of its claim referred the memo of agreement dated 9. 4. 1996 between plaintiff and respondent no. 3 to show that the plaintiff financed the deal in question. As such, the plaintiff could not become the owner of the goods in question. He also referred the sale confirmation contracts dated 10. 7. 96 and 11. 7. 96 showing the defendant no. 3 as the seller and the plaintiff as beneficiary. Letter dated 28. 9. 1995 is a sale confirmation by Specials Trading Company, USA in which Specials Trading Company, USA was shown as the seller and Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. as a buyer. The letters dated 21. 8. 95 and 6. 9. 95 sent by Specials Trading Company, USA to Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. for the ready stock of 15000 to 16000 MTs. and copies of 13 invoices dated 13. 6. 96 and photostat copies of packing list dated 13. 6. 95 show that Specials Trading Company was the exporter and Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. was a consignee. Copies of 15 bills of Lading by Hawknet Ltd. show that Specials Trading Company, USA was a shipper and notified address was given of the defendant no. 1 Shrichakra Special Trading Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, Eisenberg and Company claims this cargo as its owner as it had invested a huge amount in purchase, making insurance and bringing it to India at Kandla Port from Russia. The plaintiff alone is the owner and entitled to take possession. Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. has no concern whatsoever with the goods. The plaintiff has also filed photostat copies of various documents in support of its claim. Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Specials Trading Company, USA are sister concerns, both of them have collusively defrauded the plaintiff in the present transaction. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff referred the letter dated 26. 3. 96. By this letter, the plaintiff intended to purchase used rails from All-Rad company and the letter dated 2. 4. 96 to this effect was sent by the plaintiff to All-Rad company in this regard. Pursuant to the agreement dated 9. 4. 96 between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 3. 96. By this letter, the plaintiff intended to purchase used rails from All-Rad company and the letter dated 2. 4. 96 to this effect was sent by the plaintiff to All-Rad company in this regard. Pursuant to the agreement dated 9. 4. 96 between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 3, the plaintiff also opened a letter of credit in the Standard Chartered Bank, in favour of All-Rad. The defendant no. 3 was responsible for the purchase of used rails from Russian Supplier through All-Rad, a German company, chartering a vessel for transportation of rails from St. Petersburg,russia to Kandla, controlling and handling the goods after its arrival in India and negotiations with Customs in India. While the plaintiff was responsible for opening a letter of credit in favour of All-Rad, to make arrangement for insurance of the rails, while the cargo was on the water and 90 days after arrival in India. Profit and loss were to be shared equally between the parties. It was also settled that profit will be shared after the plaintiff will collect costs of goods plus expenses. The Bill of Lading dated 16. 4. 96 was received in the name of the plaintiff. Invoice dated 26. 4. 96 was issued by All-Rad and company showing the plaintiff as owner of the goods which was purchased from Lakefield company. The letter by the respondent no. 2 dated 28. 5. 96 shows that the defendant no. 2 took responsibility of holding property as trustees of the plaintiff. Another letter dated 30. 5. 96 also shows that the correspondence between plaintiff and the defendant no. 3. The defendant no. 2 by its letter dated 24. 7. 96 sent to the plaintiff that the goods will not be disposed of without prior direction of the plaintiff. The plaintiff directed the defendant no. 2 by letter dated 5. 8. 96 for the release of 1000 Mts. of rails in favour of Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. The defendant no. 2 by its letter dated 21. 8. 96 confirmed the ownership of the plaintiff regarding the goods in question. All-Rad company by its letter dated 14. 10. 96 confirmed that the plaintiff has made payment of cargos. It was also contended that fraud has been committed by the defendant no. 3 The Specials Trading Co. , USA, defendant no. 2 and the defendant no. 8. 96 confirmed the ownership of the plaintiff regarding the goods in question. All-Rad company by its letter dated 14. 10. 96 confirmed that the plaintiff has made payment of cargos. It was also contended that fraud has been committed by the defendant no. 3 The Specials Trading Co. , USA, defendant no. 2 and the defendant no. 1 Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. on the plaintiff. ( 9 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents including photostat copies filed by both the partiesin support of their respective claims. From the papers on record, it appears that there was a joint venture and some understanding between the plaintiff and Specials Trading Company, USA, the defendant no. 3 regarding transaction of the goods as both of them hail from USA. The contract dated 21. 2. 1996 shows that Lakefield Investment Company Ltd. , was discounted as a seller and Special Trading Company, USA was the buyer. The document dated 26. 3. 96 shows that the plaintiff as the owner directed All-Rad company that the transaction was to be made through Specials Trading Company, USA. As per terms and conditions of the agreement dated 9. 4. 96 between Specials Trading Company, USA and the plaintiff, the Specials Trading Company, USA was required to purchase rails from Russian supplier through All-Rad Company, to make an arrangement of chartered vessel for transportation of the rails from St. Petesburg to Kandla, controlling and handling goods after its arrival in India, and negotiate with customers in India, while the plaintiff was required to open letter of credit and to make insurance arrangement for cargo. It was also a condition that profit and loss were to be equally shared between the parties. Profit was to be shared after the plaintiff collects costs of goods and expenses. Mr. Guy Elan who was the share holder of 50% and President and Director of Specials Trading Company dealt with the transaction to some extent filed his declaration stating that he and other partner Manoj B Parekh offered to purchase cargo by paying for All-Rad discharge from financial obligations and installing the plaintiff as financier and owner of the cargo. The plaintiff accepted subject to certain terms and conditions which were accepted by the Specials Trading Company, USA. The plaintiff accepted subject to certain terms and conditions which were accepted by the Specials Trading Company, USA. It is also stated that due to certain unforeseen difficulties in loading the cargo, additional expenses of US dollars 8000 were required. The Specials Trading Company, USA again requested the plaintiff as the owner of the cargo to approve extra expenses accordingly. The plaintiff had to bear those expenses as the owner of the cargo. Both the parties have filed photostat copies of certain papers to show that one or other party was shown as a consignee, exporter, shipper, buyer or seller in order to prove their title over the cargo. But in this respect,guy Elan stated in its declaration in paras (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) and (j) as under:" (E) The initial export documents from Russia ("the First Set of Documents") detailed AGAT and other affiliated ("vektor", "vizit") as the exporter and shipper and SPECIALs TRADING as consignee. The First Set of Documents is attached as Exhibit 16. (F) The First Set of Documents was then substituted per instructions given by Mr. Manoj B Parekh to the chartering company, HAWKNET, by a new Bill of Lading ("the Second Set of Documents"), showing SPECIALs TRADING as the shipper and EISENBERG as the consignee. Also, per instructions of Manoj B Parekh, the "notify address" on the Bill of Lading was changed to a company called Friends and Friends, a customs broker and handling agent in the Port of Kandla, India. The Second Set of Documents is attached as Exhibit 17. (G) While the Cargo was on its way to India, I was made to understand by my partner,manoj B Parekh, that it was commercially imprudent to presell the Cargo during the voyage or upon arrival in Kandla. Rather, the Cargo would fetch a substantially higher price when readily available for sale on the local Indian market. The difference, per Mr. Parekh, could add up to tens of dollars per metric ton. However, he repeatedly confirmed that "customers were lining up at our offices in Bombay", eager to buy the Cargo. To the best of my knowledge, it tuned out that not a single lot had been pre-sold, nor do I know of any payment that had been made at any time prior to or at the arrival of the Cargo in India. To the best of my knowledge, it tuned out that not a single lot had been pre-sold, nor do I know of any payment that had been made at any time prior to or at the arrival of the Cargo in India. (H) On May 8, 1996, EISENBERG referred copies of the shipping documents, attached as Exhibit 18, for SPECIALs TRADING confirmation, prior to effecting payment on the L/c. (I) During the voyage, per Manoj B. Parekhs advice, I requested EISENBERG, in a fax dated May 15, 1996 attached as Exhibit 19, that the Bill of Lading be modified and substituted yet again ("the Third Set of Documents"), to read consignee "to order", instead of EISENBERG, and "notify address" "friends andfriends" (unchanged ). This was agreed by EISENBERG on the basis of Manoj B Parekhs explanation, that it would be easier to comply with the Indian customs regulations with regard to importation of the Cargo, when the name of a foreign company (EISENBERG) would not appear on the Bill of Lading. The Third set of Documents is attached as exhibit 20. (J) Still, prior to arrival of the vessel in Kandla, Manoj B Parekh determined that in order to smooth the process of customs clearance and enhancing the marketability of the Cargo, it would be preferable to divide the Cargo into smaller lots rather than handle one large shipment of 15,000 metric tons. Accordingly, Mr. Parekh convinced EISENBERGs Mr. Oded Dimant to agree to the substitution of the Third Set of Documents by 15 new Bills of Lading of 1000 metric tons each,stating the consignee "to order" (unchanged), and the "notify address" was changed to read " SHREE CHAKRA SPECIALAs TRADING CO. 9i0 PVT. LTD. " ("shree CHAAKRA")" ( 10 ) FROM the statement of Guy Elan, it appears that in order to avoid any kind of harassment in India, the names of buyers, sellers, transporter, shipper, consignee or notify address or to order were modified by theplaintiff in the papers at the request of the director, Guy Elan on the instructions of Mr. Manoj Parekh other director of the Company, though he had stated that the plaintiff acted as financier. Thus, on the basis of the invoices, the bills of lading, packing list and other papers showing different names as buyer, seller, transporter, shipper, no inference can be drawn as to which of the parties was the owner. Manoj Parekh other director of the Company, though he had stated that the plaintiff acted as financier. Thus, on the basis of the invoices, the bills of lading, packing list and other papers showing different names as buyer, seller, transporter, shipper, no inference can be drawn as to which of the parties was the owner. Moreover, the statement of Guy Elan appears to be correct that the defendant and the plaintiff were shown in the papers in different capacity on the request of Guy Elan for the convenience of the transaction on the instructions of Manoj Parekh,other director of the company. ( 11 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 that the defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 3 through whom the defendant no. 1 claims title of the goods in dispute have been shown as buyer or consignee or notify party or "to order" in the documents in Bills of Lading, invoices, packing lists, certificate or confirmation of orders etc. , under the provisions of section 2 of the Sales of Goods Act and Bills of Lading Act, the defendant no. 1 will be presumed to be the owner of the goods, is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances discussed above. ( 12 ) IT is not disputed that the plaintiff made whole payment of the cargo to the seller of the goods and the defendant no. 1 Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. has not paid a single pai towards consideration or sale price of the cargo. It is also not stated by the defendant no. 1 Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. that the defendant no. 3 paid any amount towards sale of the cargo. Moreover, the defendant no. 1 Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. claims its ownership on the basis of the various documents including the documents marked as 1,2,3,4, 4/2 and 4/3 in its exhibit list. But Guy Elan, Director of defendant no. 3 has denied his signatures on the aforesaid documents marks 1,2,3,4, 4/2 and 4/3 in his declaration which are purported to have been issued under his signature. The learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 asserted the signature of Mr. Guy Elan on comparison of his signature on the other documents. But Guy Elan, Director of defendant no. 3 has denied his signatures on the aforesaid documents marks 1,2,3,4, 4/2 and 4/3 in his declaration which are purported to have been issued under his signature. The learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 asserted the signature of Mr. Guy Elan on comparison of his signature on the other documents. He also informed the Court that the plaintiff has not filed original documents inspite of the application being moved by the defendant no. 1 in the court below therefor. Further, it is disputed whether those documents relied on by the defendant no. 1 Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. are genuine or forged which is the subject matter of the suit proceedings. There are some documents on record to show the conduct of the defendant nos. 2 and 3 that they were consuslting the plaintiff at every stage in the transaction. The true effect of a transaction can be determined from the terms of the agreement considered in the light of the surrounding circumstances. We have to go behind the documents and other surrounding circumstances of joint venture to determine the nature of transaction controlled by one party or by both the parties. Controlling power of the movement of the transaction is also one of the elements of ownership or title. In view of the terms of the agreement dated 9. 4. 96 between the parties, conduct of the defendant nos. 1,2 and 3 consulting the plaintiff at each and every stage and declaration by Guy Elan treating the plaintiff as owner and financier leads to make out prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. As such, it cannot be said that the the plaintiff has no lien, economic interest, title or claim over the property. It was also settled between the parties by an agreement dated 9. 4. 96 that the share in profit and loss of the parties was to be shared equally after the plaintiff collected cost and expenses of the rails. These aspects lend in support of the title and ownership of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not sought for possession of the cargo. 4. 96 that the share in profit and loss of the parties was to be shared equally after the plaintiff collected cost and expenses of the rails. These aspects lend in support of the title and ownership of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not sought for possession of the cargo. The plaintiffs prayer before the court below is for injunction and a direction to the defendants to hand over papers but there is no prayer of the plaintiff before this Court for a direction to the defendant for handing over the papers to the plaintiff. Even no prayer has been made before this Court also for possession of the cargo by the plaintiff. During the course of the arguments, I was under the impression that the plaintiff is interested in money invested and the defendant no. 1 in goods. Hence, I proposed for an amicable settlement. The plaintiff has shown its willingness to deposit security in the court below for an amount of invoice value at the rate of US dollars 176. 00 per MT for the release of cargo, whereas Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. offered to deposit security at the rate of US dollars 200. 00 Per Mt. But both of them could not reach at an amicable conclusion. I am not inclined in view of the facts stated above to release the goods in favour of any party. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 emphatically contended that the parties entered into an agreement dated 9. 4. 96 to deal with the transaction, outside India in a foreign country U. S. A. hence the Courts in India have no jurisdiction to try the matter in dispute connected with the transaction of the agreement aforesaid. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 holds no water inasmuch as the cargo pursuant to the agreement has reached at Kandla in India where the dispute regarding ownership started and the part of cause of action lies in India. In view of the provisions of section 20 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, cause of action in part arose in India as such the courts in India including this Court and Court below have jurisdiction over the matter in dispute. ( 14 ) DURING the course of the arguments the learned counsel for the defendant no. In view of the provisions of section 20 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, cause of action in part arose in India as such the courts in India including this Court and Court below have jurisdiction over the matter in dispute. ( 14 ) DURING the course of the arguments the learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 showed photostat copy of the Bombay High Courts order dated 24. 12. 96 whereby the defendant no. 1 has been permitted to remove goods subject to the condition that the defendant no. 1 furnished security to the satisfaction of the Photonotary and Senior Master for the actual value of the goods or invoice value whichever is more on the Notice of Motion No. 3365 of 1996 in suit no. 3716 of 1996 and the learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 tried to persuade the court to pass similar order here also. But in my view the persuation by the learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 does not succeed inasmuch the plaintiff which claims ownership and title over the goods in dispute has not been impleaded in that suit or Notice of Motion, such order passed by the Bombay High Court with great respect cannot be binding in view of the general principles of law, if two parties approach the Court of law without impleading the actual claimant of the property and suppressing the proceedings about it pending in other court, one of the party obtains an order from the Court, that order would not be binding on the plaintiff which was not even impleaded or had no notice of the proceedings pending in the Bombay High Court. ( 15 ) FOR the sake of arguments, even if we believe the argument of Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. that the plaintiff was only a financier, then also, the plaintiff will have its first claim as lien over the property which was financed on the basis of principles of equity. If its claim is not satisfied with the property financed, he will have a right to recover the rest of his claim from the party to whom the finance was made. If its claim is not satisfied with the property financed, he will have a right to recover the rest of his claim from the party to whom the finance was made. In the instant case, it appears from the papers on record that the plaintiff acted as financier as well as an authority commanding the movements of the cargo by instructing the parties and that the defendants were seeking instructions and consulting the plaintiff at each and every stage of transaction. On behalf of the defendant no. 1 Shrichakra Specials Trading Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. it is also submitted that in case the plaintiff is declared as the owner of the property, it would be difficult for satisfying and maintaining his claim from the foreign company. Hence, the property should not be released in favour of the plaintiff. ( 16 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, and the materials on record, it appears that the order of the Court below which recorded the finding regarding the prima facie case being made out and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and that if the interim injunction order is not granted, irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff, does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or infirmity. The learned counsel for the parties could not point out any material infirmity or illegality to warrant interference by his Court. As such, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal of the defendant no. 1 for setting aside the order of the court below and the appeal of the plaintiff for a direction to the defendants for handing over the original documents to the plaintiff or to allow the plaintiff for the removal or disposal of the goods (which cannot be passed unless the ownership of the goods is established in the trial court) are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The order dated 17. 5. 97 passed by the trial Court below application of the plaintiff exh. 5 is maintained. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case the court below is directed to decide the suit expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. The order dated 17. 5. 97 passed by the trial Court below application of the plaintiff exh. 5 is maintained. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case the court below is directed to decide the suit expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. The trial Court is further directed to decide and dispose of the suit without being influenced in any manner, by the observations made by this Court in this judgment. .