Delhi High Court
Mr. Vikram Bakshi vs Mrs. Sonia Khosla & Ors. on 16 November, 2010
Author: Vipin Sanghi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 19.10.2010
% Judgment delivered on: 16.11.2010
+ O.M.P. No.613/2010
MR. VIKRAM BAKSHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vibhu Bakhru and Mr. Anand M.
Mishra, Advocates.
versus
MRS. SONIA KHOSLA & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Respondent No.3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? : No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? : No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? : No
JUDGMENT
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
1. I had reserved the orders on 19.10.2010 when the matter
was taken up for the first time. Respondent No.3, Deepak Khosla had
put in appearance and made his submissions to oppose the grant of
any ad interim orders of injunction in favour of the petitioner. After the
arguments were over, I had permitted the petitioner to file copies of
two judgments. Mr. Deepak Khosla was also permitted to file a couple
of judgments on which he desired to place reliance at this preliminary
stage. Mr. Khosla, however, mentioned the matter on a couple of
occasions thereafter, and sought more time to file the copies of the
judgments. His request was granted. Eventually, Mr. Khosla has filed
a large compilation of judgments with detailed written submissions
running into two volumes on 29.10.2010.
2. I have considered the matter. I am inclined to issue notice to
the respondents. Accordingly, I direct that notice be issued to the
respondents, returnable on 22.12.2010.
3. At this preliminary stage, I proceed to consider the issue
whether pending further hearing of this petition after grant of sufficient
opportunity to all the parties, the request for grant of ad interim orders
of injunction as prayed for by the petitioner should be granted so as to
preserve the rights of the parties and to prevent any prejudice being
suffered by the parties on account of the conduct of the opposite
parties in the meantime.
4. Broadly speaking, the case of the petitioner is that the
petitioner was approached by Mr. Deepak Khosla, respondent No.3,
with a proposal to finance and develop a resort cum real estate
development venture at Kasauli, Himachal Pradesh.
5. The petitioner, respondent No.2 R.P. Khosla, respondent No.3
Deepak Khosla, and M/s. Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as „the Company‟) entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding on 21.12.2005 to implement a Joint Venture Project
involving the lands contracted to be purchased in the name of the
Company as well as in the names of the members of the Khosla Family
to which the respondent Nos.1 to 4 belong which were to be assigned
in favour of the Company. The Company was chosen as the Special
Purpose Vehicle for implementation of the project. The share holders
of the Company agreed to transfer their entire shareholding in the said
company to the Bakshi family, of which the petitioner is a
representative, or their nominees upon payment of consideration.
6. The MOU broadly set out the various rights and obligations of
the parties. At the time of the signing of the said MOU, the petitioner
made payment of Rs.10 lakhs to respondent No.2 Shri R.P.Khosla. Two
nominees of the petitioner (Mr. Wadia Prakash and Mr. Vinod Sharma)
were brought on the Board of Directors of the Company.
7. The petitioner submits that believing the representation of
respondents No.2 & 3, that the proposed project had been accorded all
requisite approvals and sanctions by the concerned authorities, and
that there was no court injunction or pending litigations in any Court,
he entered into an Agreement dated 31.03.2006 with the respondents
No.1, 2 and the Company. In the agreement, it was represented that
the Company had authorized subscribed and fully paid-up share capital
of Rs. One lakh divided into 10,000 shares of Rs.10 each. Mr. Vini
Ahuja and respondent No.1 were the original shareholders of the
Company. At the time of signing of the Agreement dated 31.03.2006,
the shareholding of the Company was :-
(a) Vikram Bakshi (petitioner) : 5,100 shares
(b) Sonia Khosla (respondent No.1) : 4,900 shares
8. The agreement recorded, inter alia, that by a separate share
purchase agreement, the Khosla family had agreed to sell and transfer
their entire 100% equity shares in the Company in favour of the
petitioner and/or his nominee for Rs.1,00,000 i.e at face value. It also
records that 51% of the existing shareholding in the Company i.e.
5,100 shares of Rs.10 each had been transferred by the Khosla family
and Mr. Vini Ahuja free from all claims, liens, charges, encumbrances
and equities together with all rights attached or accruing thereto in the
name of Vikram Bakshi - the petitioner herein and his nominees, and
the said transfer was registered in the books of the Company by the
then Directors of the Company.
9. Under the Agreement, an amount of Rs.6,44,38,898 crores
was required to be paid to the Khoslas as per the schedule contained
therein. It appears that an amount of Rs.1.94 crores out of the said
amount stands paid. According to the petitioner, the said payment is
in excess of what the petitioner was obliged to pay in terms of the
Agreement, as the Khosla Group did not achieve the milestones
required to be achieved before becoming entitled to receive the
payment. In this regard, my attention is drawn to clause 8 of the
Agreement dated 31.03.2006, which lays down the payment schedule.
It is stated that on transfer of 22 bighas of land belonging to
respondent No.2. Shri R.P. Khosla in favour of the Company by
31.03.2006, the instalment of Rs. two crores was to be paid. This
transfer has, however, not been made. Even then the petitioner has
paid an amount of Rs. One crore. All earlier payments under sub-
clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause 8 were made and accepted by the
Khoslas.
10. Clause 10 of the Agreement provided that out of
Rs.10,00,000 paid to Shri R.P. Khosla respondent no.2, at the time of
the execution of the MOU by the petitioner, Rs.51,000/- shall be
treated as consideration from the petitioner for transfer of 5,100 equity
shares in the Company which had already been done from Mr. Vini
Ahuja and Mrs. Sonia Khosla, respondent No.1 in favour of the
petitioner Vikram Bakshi.
11. Under the Agreement, clause 24 provided that Khosla family
shall be represented on the Board of Directors through their nominees
with one seat, even when their entire shareholding is transferred in
favour of the petitioner. The nominee of the Khosla family was to
remain on the Board of the Company till one of the projects, namely,
Mashobra Projects was completed and 5% of the sale proceeds of
Mashobra land was settled. The Khosla family undertook not to
transfer the shares in the Company or induct new Directors from the
date of signing of this Agreement, other than what is permitted and
stated in the Agreement.
12. Clause 29 of the said Agreement provided for resolution of
disputes through arbitration.
13. The respondent No.1 preferred a petition under Section 397,
398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act before the Company Law
Board, New Delhi as a minority shareholder in relation to the Company,
wherein she had stated that her shareholding constituted 49%/36.5%
of the legally issued, subscribed and fully paid-up share capital. At the
same time, she also stated that the petitioner, Shri Vikram Bakshi (who
was arrayed as respondent No.2 in the Company Petition) holds
5,100/6,350 shares in the Company.
14. In para 6.8 of the Company Petition, respondent No.1 had
admitted that at the time of the execution of the MOU, 5,100 equity
shares held by her and Mr. Vini Ahuja (a family associate) in the
Company were, in good faith, transferred to the petitioner herein.
Therefore, respondent No.1 admitted the transfer of the said 5,100
equity shares of the Company in favour of the petitioner herein, and
that he was the majority shareholder, holding 51% stake in the
company.
15. In the said Company Petition, an application under Section 8
of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act was preferred by placing reliance
on the Arbitration Agreement contained in clause 29 in the said
Agreement.
16. An application under Section 11 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act was also preferred before this Court being Arbitration
Petition No.93/2008. The Court disposed of the said arbitration petition
which resulted in constitution of an arbitral tribunal consisting of Mr.
Justice Arun Kumar, former Judge, Supreme Court of India as the
Chairman, Mr. Justice R.C.Chopra (Retd.), and Ms. Justice Usha Mehra
(Retd.).
17. The petitioner submits that respondent No.3, who also
represented the other members of the Khosla family did not permit the
arbitration proceedings to proceed and, consequently, members of the
Tribunal tendered their resignation. He has placed reliance on the
order dated 20.03.2009 passed by the arbitral tribunal in this behalf.
18. During the pendency of the aforesaid company petition
preferred by the respondent No.1 herein, the Khoslas sought to disturb
the composition of the board of directors of the company. The
respondents claimed that the two nominee directors, nominated by the
petitioner herein, namely, Sh. Wadia Prakash and Sh. Vinod Surha had
ceased to remain Additional Directors w.e.f. 30.09.2006 as they were
not confirmed in the AGM held on that day, and that the petitioner
herein, who was appointed as Additional Director on 19.03.2007 could
also not hold office as he had been appointed by the board consisting
of the said two Additional Directors, namely, Sh. Wadia Prakash and
Sh. Vinod Surha, who had already ceased to be Directors. The
Company Law Board (CLB) passed a detailed order on 31.01.2008
discussing the conduct of the Khoslas and directed restoration of
status quo with regard to the composition of board of directors and
shareholders as it is existed on the day of filing of the company
petition and directed the Registrar of Companies (ROC) not to take on
record any document filed by the company on or after 01.12.2007.
The shares purported to have been issued after the filing of the
company petition on 18.12.2007 stood cancelled and the Additional
Directors appointed on 11.12.2007 and 18.12.2007 ceased to be
Additional Directors with immediate effect. It was further directed that
the company/board of directors of the company shall maintain status
quo with regard to the shareholding and fixed assets of the company
as it stood at the time of filing of the petition, and the board shall not
take any substantive decision on the finances of the company.
19. To challenge the order dated 31.01.2008 of the CLB, Mr. R.P.
Khosla, respondent No.2 herein, preferred Company Appeal (SB)
No.07/2008, which was taken up by the learned Company Judge on
11.04.2008. This appeal was heard in the presence of the counsels for
the parties. The consent of the parties was recorded by the Court. The
operative part of the order reads as follows:
"Respondent No.3, Mrs. Sonia Khosla, feeling
herself in minority filed a petition under
Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act,
1956 being CP No.114/2007 before the
Company Law Board and alleged operation
against her by the majority shareholders. The
parties have agreed that the petition
being CP no.114/2007 filed before the
Company Law Board shall be withdrawn
by Mrs. Sonia Khosla [respondent no.3]
because the arbitration has already been
invoked before deciding the present
proceedings in terms of agreement dated
31.03.2006. Both the parties have agreed
that they shall maintain status quo with
regard to the shareholdings and fixed
assets of the respondent company as it
stood at the time of filing of the petition
before the Company Law Board under
Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies
Act, 1956 and that the Board of the said
Company shall not take any substantive
decision on the finances of the said
Company without prior permission of the
arbitral tribunal before whom the
disputes between the parties are pending
in terms of agreement dated 31.03.2006.
Mr. Bakhru, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent [Bakshi Group], says that
his client shall not oppose the withdrawal of
the company petition pending before the
Company Law Board. Both the parties have
further agreed that they shall approach the
arbitral tribunal for any interim relief, if felt
necessary from time to time. The functioning
of the respondent no.1 company shall be
subject to the orders to be passed by the
arbitral tribunal from time to time.
In view of the above, this appeal is not pressed
by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant for any further relief."
(emphasis supplied)
20. The respondent No.1 also preferred Company Appeal (SB)
No.06/2008 before the Company Court. This appeal was dismissed by
the learned Company Court on 22.04.2008 in view of the order passed
in the Company Appeal No.07/2008, as aforesaid. The operative part
of the order passed by the learned Company Judge reads as follows:
"8. Be that as it may, the fact is that the
parties have been directed to maintain status
quo with regard to composition of Board and
shareholdings of appellant No.2 company as it
existed on the day of filing of the petition.
This Court is of the opinion that having
regard to the controversy, which is sub
judice before the panel of Arbitrators, it
would be appropriate that the parties
maintain status quo with regard to the
composition of Board and shareholdings
as it existed on the day of filing of the
petition by appellant no.1 [Ms. Sonia
Khosla] before the Company Law Board,
which was filed on 13.08.2007. This
conclusion is supported by the order
passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on
09.04.2008 and also the order passed by
this Court on 11.04.2008 in the appeal of
Mr. R.P. Khosla.
9. In view of the above, I do not find
any merit in this appeal, which fails and is
hereby dismissed in limine.
10. Any observation made in this order will
not influence the merit of the case pending
before the Arbitral Tribunal."
(emphasis supplied)
21. Despite the aforesaid orders passed by the CLB and by the
Company Judge in the aforesaid two appeals, according to the
petitioner, the respondents have once again started taking steps to
manipulate the Board of Directors of the Company, in contravention of
the aforesaid orders. The petitioner states that respondent Nos.3 & 4
herein have signed and filed various forms with the Registrar of
Companies without any lawful authority in relation to the company,
which apparently is in violation of the orders of the Company Law
Board dated 31.01.2008 and of the learned Company Judge dated
11.04.2008 and 22.04.2008 and, also contrary to the agreement dated
31.03.2006 between the parties. The details of the forms signed and
filed by the respondent Nos.3 & 4 are tabulated in para 62 of the
petition and the said tabulation is reproduced hereunder for ready
reference:
"S. Form Date of Particulars Signed by
No. No. Filing
1. Form 32 28.08.10 This form is filed Form is digitally
showing appointment signed by
of Vineet Khosla as respondent no.3
Director w.e.f. as director.
29.06.2010
2. Form 67 06.09.10 This form is filed as a The form is signed
response to the query by respondent
raised by Registrar of no.2 as Chairman
Companies. and Managing
Director.
In response to the
query respondent no.3
has made certain false
and misleading
statements while
interpreting the certain
court orders.
3. Form 67 09.09.10 This form is also filed The form is signed
as a response to the by respondent
query of Registrar of no.3 as Managing
Companies. A patently Director.
false and misleading
undertaking/
declaration is
submitting alongwith
this form under the
signature of
respondent no.3
claiming himself as
Chairman and
Managing Director.
4. Form 10.09.10 This form is filed as The electronic
20B alleged revised Annual form is digitally
(Annual Return for the year signed by
Return) 2005-06. The respondent no.3
particular filed in this as Managing
form are in Director and
contradiction to the manual Form
terms of MOU dt. attached to the
21.12.05 and electronic form is
agreement dated signed by
31.03.2006. respondent no.3
and 4 both.
5. Form 10.09.10 This form is filed as The electronic
20B alleged revised Annual form is digitally
(Annual Return for the year signed by
Return) 2006-07. The respondent no.3
particular filed in this as Managing
form are in Director and
contradiction to the manual Form
terms of MOU dt. attached to the
21.12.05 and electronic form is
agreement dated signed by
31.03.2006. respondent no.3
and 4 both.
6. Form 10.09.10 This form is filed as The electronic
20B alleged revised Annual form is digitally
(Annual Return for the year signed by
Return) 2007-08. The respondent no.3
particular filed in this as Managing
form are in Director and
contradiction to the manual Form
terms of MOU dt. attached to the
21.12.05 and electronic form is
agreement dated signed by
31.03.2006. respondent no.3
and 4 both.
7. Form 10.09.10 This form is filed as The electronic
20B alleged revised Annual form is digitally
(Annual Return for the year signed by
Return) 2008-09. The respondent no.3
particular filed in this as Managing
form are in Director and
contradiction to the manual Form
terms of MOU dt. attached to the
21.12.05 and electronic form is
agreement dated signed by
31.03.2006. respondent no.3
and 4 both."
22. The petitioner further submits that despite the aforesaid
orders the respondent No.1, Sonia Khosla, had issued a notice dated
16.04.2010 claiming herself to be the sole remaining director of the
company. By the said notice an extraordinary general meeting of the
company was purported to be called for appointing, inter alia,
respondent No.2 as a director.
23. In OMP No.660/2009 preferred by the petitioner before this
Court under Section 9 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the
petitioner sought restraint against the holding of the said extraordinary
general meeting or passing the proposed resolutions thereat. This
Court vide order dated 27.04.2010, in the presence of Sh. Deepak
Khosla, respondent No.3 herein, passed an order of restraint,
restraining respondent No.1 in that petition, namely, Sonia Khosla from
giving effect to any resolution or decision which may be taken in the
extraordinary general meeting or proceeding to attend or hold in any
capacity of hers in the company. It is stated that the said interim order
of injunction continues to remain in force. The appeal before the
Division Bench from the order dated 27.04.2010 has also been rejected
by the Division Bench on 01.06.2010.
24. Mr. Deepak Khosla, on the other hand, has sought to place
strong reliance on the order dated 26.04.2010 passed in CCP (CO)
no.11/2009 whereby a learned Single judge of this Court had
restrained the petitioner, Sh. Wadia Prakash and Sh. Vinod Surha from
transacting business on behalf of the company as its directors. I may
note that this order was relied upon by the respondent while making
his submissions in OMP No.660/2009 as well. The learned Single Judge
rejected the reliance placed on the said order by the respondent in the
following words:
"12. Having considered the submissions, the
Court is of the opinion that the interim order
made on 26.04.2010 in CCP 2/10 and CCP (CO)
11/2009 cannot be construed as an
impediment to the maintainability of the
present application. The present application is
treated as one for the second applicant, who
claims to be a signatory of the agreement
dated 31.03.2006. As to what are the inter se
rights of the parties is not a matter for the
Court to consider at this interim stage.
However, what is apparent is that the orders of
this Court in the company appeals have
become final......................................."
25. A perusal of the order dated 26.04.2010 passed in CCP (CO)
No.11/2009 shows that the same is an ex parte order passed at the
very preliminary stage of hearing of the said contempt petition. I fail
to understand how an ex parte order passed even without issuance of
notice to the respondent can be cited by the respondent at this stage
to claim that the same constitutes a binding precedent on this Court.
26. I may also note that the submissions made by Sh. Deepak
Khosla before me are more or less the same as those made before the
learned Single Judge dealing with OMP No.660/2009 and which are
recorded in the order dated 27.04.2010.
27. One of the submissions of Mr. Deepak Khosla is that the
petitioner has impleaded various other respondents, who are not even
the party to the agreement dated 30.03.2006. He submits that the
present petition is not maintainable against those who are not party to
the said agreement as they are not parties to the arbitration
agreement. In support of his submission he relies on the order dated
29.05.2009 passed in OMP No.316/2009 Montreaux Resorts (P) Ltd.
& Ors. v. Vikram Bakshi wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court
had taken a view that the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, could be filed only against those who are parties to
the arbitration agreement. Those who are not parties to the arbitration
agreement cannot be dragged to the Court and cannot be made a
party under Section 9 of the Act. It was held that the petition was,
therefore, not maintainable.
28. Mr. Khosla has also sought to urge that the company is not
bound by the agreement entered into between its shareholders and,
therefore, the board of directors of the company cannot be restrained
in the manner sought by the petitioner. In this regard, he has placed
reliance on the decision in Ador Samia Limited v. Indocan
Engineering Limited (2000) 100 CC 0370, a decision of the CLB.
29. The agreement dated 31.03.2006 is an agreement between
the petitioner Sh. Vikram Bakshi, Mrs. Sonia Khosla, Mr. R.P. Khosra
and the company. As the company is also a party to the said
agreement, prima facie, it cannot be said that the company is not
bound by the said agreement in the facts of this case. Under sub-
clause `B‟ of clause 25 of the Agreement dated 31.03.2006, the
company agreed and confirmed "that it shall unequivocally abide by
the terms of this Agreement, and shall ensure that the same is
honored in its letter and spirit and shall incorporate the amendments
to its articles of association if required." The Company is a private
limited company and the petitioner holds 51% shares i.e. majority
shares in the company. The company has already acted upon the said
agreement partially. In Ador Samia Limited (supra), the CLB was
dealing with the prayer that the petitioner should have three nominee
directors on the board of the concerned company in terms of the MOU
between the parties in that case. The CLB took note of the fact that
the petitioner held only 18% of the shareholding and its right to have 3
nominee directors was premised on the petitioner holding 60%
shareholding in the company. It was in that background that the CLB
recognised the right of the petitioner to have 1 nominee director on
the Board of the said company. In the present case, the reliefs are
directed primarily against the Khoslas and those who have been
installed by them as Directors of the company, apparently in breach of
the orders of the CLB and the learned Company judge.
30. In M.S. madhusoodhanan v. Kerala Kaumudi Pvt. Ltd.
and Ors. (2004) 9 SCC 204, the Supreme Court has held that a holder
of shares in a private company may agree to sell his shares to a person
of his choice and such agreements are specifically enforceable under
Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Mrs. Sonia Khosla and Mr.
R.P. Khosla i.e. respondent Nos.1 & 2, are, in any event, undoubtedly
bound by the said agreement. One of the undertakings furnished by
the Khosla family under clause 25 of the said agreement was to the
effect that the Khosla family shall not transfer the shares in the
company or induct any new directors from the date of the signing of
the agreement other than what is permitted or stated in the
agreement. If the Khoslas could not have, prima facie, inducted in
fresh shareholders/Directors in the first place they cannot purport to
breach the said obligation through their appointees on the Board of
Directors of the company.
31. The agreement provided for transfer of 100% shareholding of
the company in favour of the petitioner and his nominees against
payment of consideration. Though it has been argued by Mr. Bakhru
that Sh. R.P. Khosla failed to transfer 22 bighas of land belonging to
him, mentioned in Annexure-I to the said agreement, in favour of
company, no explanation has been furnished by Mr. Deepak Khosla at
this stage for the said alleged default. During his submissions he has
not even controverted this assertion of Mr. Bakhru. It is not even the
case of Mr. Khosla that the respondents were ready and willing to
transfer the additional land of 5 bighas belonging to Mr. R.P. Khosla in
favour of the company at any stage, which was a condition precedent
for payment of further amount of Rs.6,44,38,892/-.
32. Mr. Khosla has also not controverted the position that
contrary to the representations given by the Khoslas, to the effect that
there were no pending litigations or encumbrances in relation to the
lands in question, as a matter of fact, litigation is pending in the Courts
in Himachal Pradesh in relation to the said land.
33. Prima facie, the endeavor of the Khoslas appears to be to
wriggle out of the agreement dated 31.03.2006 after having pocketed
a huge amount of Rs.1.94 crores. Under the agreement, not only the
entire shareholding in the company but even the control over the
company was to vest in the Bakshi group, represented by the
petitioner. The endevour of the Khosla group, prima facie, appears to
be unfairly wrest control of the company and change the shareholding
pattern to again reassert their majority, which they lost upon transfer
of 51% shares in favour of the petitioner/his nominee. It, prima facie,
also appears that the Khoslas are not willing to let the disputes get
resolved through arbitration. In the meantime, despite orders of the
CLB, the Company Judge and this Court, repeatedly steps are sought to
be taken to alter the status quo.
34. Mr. Khosla has filed two very large compilations before this
Court containing judgments on various propositions, which were not
even urged at the hearing. All these propositions would need
examination with regard to their relevance and applicability to the
facts of the case. The purpose of dumping such large compilation of
judgments appears to be to scuttle the present proceedings.
35. For the present, the rights of the petitioner cannot be
permitted to be put in jeopardy and the respondents cannot be
permitted to continually act in contravention of the orders passed by
the CLB, the two orders passed by the Company Court as also the
order passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP No.660/2009.
36. So far as the maintainability of this petition against those
who are not parties to the arbitration agreement is concerned, prima
facie, in view of the decisions relied upon by the petitioner in Arun
Kapur v. Vikram Kapur & Ors. 2002 (61) DRJ 495 and Girish
Mulchand Mehta v. Mahesh S. Mehta 2010 BCR (1) 31, I am of the
view that this petition is maintainable.
37. I am of the view that, having regard to the urgency in the
matter and the past conduct of the respondents of continuing to alter
the composition of the board of directors of the company, despite
interim directions passed by the Company Law Board; the Company
Judge, and; also by this Court, unless injunction as sought for is
granted the respondent would cause prejudice to the rights of the
petitioner, as the composition of the Board of Directors and Members
of the company is likely to be further altered. The induction of
respondent Nos.3 as the Managing Director and Mr. Vineet Khosla-
respondent No.4 as a Director of the company, prima facie, is in breach
of the aforesaid orders of the CLB, the learned Company Judge and the
orders passed in O.M.P. No.660/2009. The same would eventually
affect the arbitral proceedings and also affect the rights of the parties.
Consequently, at this stage, I pass interim orders of restraint against
the respondents in terms of prayers (a) to (d) of this petition, which
shall remain in force till the next date of hearing.
38. Needless to state that the view taken by me at this stage is
tentative.
(VIPIN SANGHI)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 16, 2010
'sn/rsk'
