JUDGMENT O.A. No. 593 of 2012 1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff/applicant to restrain the respondents 1, 2 and 5/defendants 1, 2 and 5 and their representatives from using the fabricated documents mentioned in para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, in any legal proceedings pending disposal of the suit. O.A. No. 594 of 2012 This application has been filed by the plaintiff/applicant to restrain the respondents 1, 2 and 5/defendants 1, 2 and 5 and their representatives from using instituting or continuing any legal proceedings with fabricated documents mentioned in para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, pending disposal of the suit. 2. The plaintiff/applicant is a company registered under the Companies Act and has filed a suit against the defendants to declare that extract of minutes of Board of Directors Meeting, dated 15.7.2010 of the plaintiff company purported to be signed by the defendant No.10, 11 and 14, as null and void with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from using the Guarantee documents, dated 2.8.2010 purported to be signed by the defendant No.10, 11 and 14 and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.5 from using the two undated cheques issued by the 7th defendant of the plaintiff company. 3. The prayer is also for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from using the Bill of Exchange -promissory note, dated 31.8.2010, purported to have been executed by the defendant No.6 and 9 through defendant No.7, 8, 12 and 13. 4. Permanent injunction is also prayed for to restrain the defendant No.1 and 2, from using the Negotiable Instrument, dated 27.10.2010 purported to have been executed by the defendant No.6 and 9 through defendant No.7, 8, 12 and 13. 5. Permanent injunction is further prayed for to restrain the defendant No.1 and 2 from using the promissory note, dated 8.3.2010 executed by the defendant No.6 and 9 through defendant No.6, 8, 12 and 13. 6. Finally, permanent injunction is prayed for to restrain the defendant No.1 and 2 from using all other documents which are in their custody as the documents said to be executed by the plaintiff and their representative without the permission of this Court. 7. 6. Finally, permanent injunction is prayed for to restrain the defendant No.1 and 2 from using all other documents which are in their custody as the documents said to be executed by the plaintiff and their representative without the permission of this Court. 7. The plaintiff/applicant is engaged in the business of providing end to end Logistics service across the country and has its subsidiaries in India and Singapore, which are also engaged in similar business of providing logistics services. The applicant/plaintiff company as two subsidiaries in Singapore, i.e. Defendant No.6 and 9. 8. It is submitted that the 7th defendant was recruited by the plaintiff Company at Chennai and was posted as Asst. Manager -Finance and Accounts in the year 2004 and later promoted as Manager Finance and Accounts. Whereas the 8th defendant was appointed as General Manager -Operations (since resigned) at the applicant/plaintiff's Mumbai office in the year 2007. 9. On 14.10.2010, Ms.Sonal Thomas of M/s.Thomas Law Professional Corporation, 2 Finley Road, Brampton ON L6T IA9 approached the defendant No.14 of the applicant company at Chennai over phone and informed that they are the counsel for the defendant No.1 and 2. She also informed that six documents are in her custody executed at Chennai for availing loan from the defendant No.1 by the defendant No.6 and 9. 10. It is pertinent to note here, that defendant No.6 and 9 are independent companies though they are subsidiaries of the plaintiff company. It is now well settled that subsidiary company is independent of its holding company with a separate and distinct identity. 11. The case of the plaintiff/applicant is that Ms.Sonal Thomas was informed that the defendant No.6 and 9 have not taken any loan, nor the plaintiff stood as guarantor for the said loan. As requested by the plaintiff company, Ms.Sonal Thomas of Thomas Law Professional forwarded the following documents to the plaintiff. (i) The Extracts of the purported Minutes of the Board of Directors, dated 15.7.2010 of the applicant company and purported to have been singed by the defendant No.10,11 and 14. (ii) Guarantee documents, dated 2.8.2010 purported to have been signed by the defendant No.10, 11 and 14. (iii) The two undated cheques purported to have been issued for the loan and have been signed by the 7th defendant of the applicant company. (ii) Guarantee documents, dated 2.8.2010 purported to have been signed by the defendant No.10, 11 and 14. (iii) The two undated cheques purported to have been issued for the loan and have been signed by the 7th defendant of the applicant company. (iv) Bill of Exchange - promissory note purported to have been executed by the 6th defendant and the defendant No.9 through defendant No.7, 8, 12 and 13, dated 31.8.2010. (v) Negotiable Instrument, dated 27.10.2010 purported to have been executed by the defendant No.6 and 9 through the defendant No.7, 8, 12 13. (vi) Bill of Exchange - Promissory note, dated 8.3.2010 purported to have been executed by the 10th defendant. 12. It is case of the plaintiff/applicant that these documents are forged having the forged signatures of the respondent No.10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 which can be noticed by naked eye. 13. It is the case of the plaintiff/applicant that the defendants 1 and 2 are using these documents in different proceedings. 14. The case of the plaintiff/applicant is that legal proceedings based on fabricated documents would cause hardship and inconvenience to the applicant company. That except the defendant No.1 and 2, no other person is resident of Canada, therefore, continuation of proceedings outside Indian Court would be forum non conveniens which deserves to be restrained. 15. The case of the plaintiff/applicant is that they have reasonable apprehension that the defendant No.1 and 2 may institute frivolous legal proceedings based on the fraudulent and fabricated documents which are in the custody of the defendant No.1 and 2. 16. It is however admitted that the defendant No.1 and 2 have instituted a suit based on the documents cited supra. 17. On the pleadings referred to above, it is prayed that permanent injunction as prayed be granted in favour of plaintiff/ applicant and against the defendant/respondent. 18. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/applicant vehemently contended, that as the documents are forged as no meeting held by the plaintiff company, which makes out a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff/applicant. It is also case of the plaintiff that the documents placed on record would show that no meeting of Board of Directors was held as alleged in the documents. 19. It is also case of the plaintiff that the documents placed on record would show that no meeting of Board of Directors was held as alleged in the documents. 19. This application is opposed by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, on the plea that in order to recover the loan advanced to the defendant No.6 and 9, the plaintiff Company has instituted a suit in Canadian Court, as per the promissory note executed by the defendant No.6, 9 and 10. 20. On consideration, this Court finds that the application prima facie is not maintainable. Admittedly, the transaction by the defendant No.1 and 2 with the defendant No.6 and 9 which are companies registered under the companies Act, though subsidiary companies of the plaintiff. These have independent legal entities, and can protect their own interest in accordance with law. 21. In sum and substance, in the garb of allegation of forged documents, the plaintiff/applicant seeks to restrain the respondents 1 and 2 from availing their legal remedy of enforcing their right to recover the loan advanced to the defendant No.6, 9 and 10. 22. Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act reads as under: "41. 21. In sum and substance, in the garb of allegation of forged documents, the plaintiff/applicant seeks to restrain the respondents 1 and 2 from availing their legal remedy of enforcing their right to recover the loan advanced to the defendant No.6, 9 and 10. 22. Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act reads as under: "41. Injunction when refused.- An injunction cannot be granted- (a) To restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the institution of the suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings; (b) To restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought; (c) To restrain any person from applying to any legislative body; (d) To restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter; (e) To prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically enforced; (f) To prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is not reasonably clear that it will be a nuisance; (g) To prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced; (h) When equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust; (i) When the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to the assistance of the court; (j) When the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter." 23. The Courts at Canada are not subordinate Courts to this Court, therefore this Court cannot issue injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from instituting suit in Court at Canada for recovery of money. Furthermore, the applicant can contest the suit by taking all the pleas available including that the documents are forged and fabricated. Therefore, prima facie case is not made out for grant of injunction. The contention that remedy availed is hit by forum non convenience, cannot be a ground to grant injunction barred under section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. Consequently, finding no merit, this application is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.