Jarat Kumar Jain: J.
1. The Appeal is filed against the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (the Tribunal). Whereby the Tribunal has allowed CA No. 1054/MB/2020 in CP No. 1069/MB/2020 filed by R-1 to R-3 and issued an order of injunction against the Appellant and R4 to R-16 not to implement the notice dated 30.07.2020 and interfere the R1 (K C Nuwal) from acting as Director and Vice Chairman of the Appellant Company.
2. Brief and relevant facts of this case are that Solar Industries India Ltd. (SIIL) (Appellant) was co-founded by Late Mr. Nandlal Nuwal and his two sons i.e. K C Nuwal and S N Nuwal on 24.02.1995 under the Companies Act, 1956. Late Mr. Nandlal Nuwal and Mrs. Sohan Devi Nuwal (spouse of Nandlal Nuwal) and Kailash Chandra Nuwal his wife Indra, Satyanarayan and his son Manish were initial subscribers to the memorandum of association of Company each family member holding 400 shares. Economic Explosive Ltd. (EEL) (Respondent No. 4) was incorporated by the same cofounders on 16.08.1995 under the Companies Act, 1956.
3. Indra Nuwal (Respondent No. 2) and Rahul Nuwal (Respondent No. 3) are wife and son of K C Nuwal (Respondent No. 1). They are collectively part of the K C Nuwal Group. Leela Devi (Respondent No. 8) (wife) Manish (Respondent No. 6) son and Seema (Respondent No. 7) daughter in law of SN Nuwal, their family group is known as SN Nuwal Group. The Appellant Company is a quasi-partnership between two families i.e. K.C. Nuwal Group holds 29.28% and S.N. Nuwal Group holds 43.88% of shares of the Appellant Company remaining 26.84% are owned by the general public. K C Nuwal (Respondent No. 1) has been shareholder of the Appellant Company since its incorporation and was formerly appointed as full time Director on the board of the Appellant Company in October, 2005 and thereafter as Vice Chairman of the board of Directors and served as whole time Director for nearly 15 years.
4. There was a family settlement dated 28.03.2009 wherein all the assets of the family including the shareholdings in the Group Companies were settled in the following manner:-
(1) S N Nuwal and his wife Leela Devi were allotted 20% shares in the assets of the family.
(2) K C Nuwal and his wife and son together were allotted 40% shares in the assets of the family.
(3) Manish and Seema (son and daughter in law) of S N Nuwal were allotted 40% shares in the assets of the family.
5. According to K C Nuwal Group, the conduct of S N Nuwal Group in administering the affairs of group Companies lacks in transparency and probity which has resulted in violation of the proprietary right of the K C Nuwal Group including the right to participate in the day to day management of the group Companies. This has caused irreparable loss and grave prejudice to the K C Nuwal Group, which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
6. K C Nuwal Group seeks immediate attention and indulgence of the Tribunal, as the majority shareholders of the group Companies are trying to perpetuate serious acts of oppression and mismanagement and to prevent serious damage to corporate substance and financials of the group Companies. The ouster of K CNuwal in the early hours of 31.07.2020, just few hours before the board meeting of Appellant Company was to stop KC Nuwal from raising substantial issues of mismanagement, unlawful and unethical practices, non-compliance, frauds and action against the interest of Appellant Company and its stakeholders. It is also stated that the efforts are being made to dismantle the present trade division, of which K C Nuwal is in charge, operating from Bhilwara, Rajasthan by raising frivolous allegations. It is also stated that Khushboo Pasari who is the Company Secretary has to ensure that the Company compiles with the applicable secretarial standards and assist the board of Directors in adhering to requisite standards of corporate governance. However, she completely abdicated, at the behest and to the undue favour of S N Nuwal Group.
7. The controversy arose when Khushboo Pasari/CS (Respondent No. 16) sent an email on 31.07.2020 to K C Nuwal enclosing a letter dated 30.07.2020 addressed to K C Nuwal stating that he has automatically vacated the office w.e.f. 07.11.2019 as he failed to disclosed his interest in AGT in proper format and at the board meeting of Appellant Company held on 07.11.2019. Therefore, requested K C Nuwal not to function as Director of Appellant Company or hold down to others that he continued to be a Director of Appellant Company. It was also stated that the Appellant Company shall not allow K C Nuwal to attend the future board meeting held on 31.07.2020 and in the event K C Nuwal continued to act as Director of Appellant Company it may result in appropriate consequences under the Companies Act, 2013 ( the) and Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Discloser Requirements) Regulation, 2015.The said letter is as below:
IMAGE
8. Khushuboo Pasari on 30.07.2020 also sent letter to the Executive Director (Listing Department) of Bombay Stock Exchange Limited and National Stock Exchange of India Limited informing the cessation of office by K C Nuwal as Executive Director and Vice Chairman of the Appellant Company. It was also stated that K C Nuwal vacated the office on account of operation of law arising due to failure to make appropriate disclosure.
9. AG Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (AGT) was incorporated by K C Nuwal and his two sons Rahul and Rahil. K C Nuwal acquired 31,76,751 shares of AG Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on 02.05.2019and became a Director thereof. The meeting of board of Director of Appellant Company held on 07.11.2019 took a decision to hire on rent the premises owned by AGT for office of the Appellant Company. It is admitted fact that in the board meeting dated 07.11.2019 K C Nuwal was not present.
10. K C Nuwal Group filed the Petition against the Appellant Company, Economic Explosive Ltd. (EEL), S N Group and other Directors and Company Secretary Khusboo Pasari under Section 241 and 242 of the.
11. Subsequently, K C Nuwal Group has filed Company Application No. 1054/(MB)/2020 for many interim reliefs. However, they have pressed two following reliefs:-
“A1. That Respondents by themselves or through their servants officers and agents be restrained by an order of injunction from acting in furtherance of or implementation of or pursuant of the notice dated 30.07.2020 and intimation of vacation of office made by R1 to the BSE and NSE dated 30.07.2020.
A2. That Respondents by themselves and/or through their servants officers and agents be restrained from interfering and obstructing the Applicant No. 1 from acting as Director and Vice Chairman of R1 Company.”
12. Ld. Tribunal after hearing Ld. Counsels for the parties allowed the aforesaid prayer and remaining prayers are rejected as not pressed.
13. Being aggrieved with this order, the Appellant Company has filed this Appeal.
14. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Ld. Tribunal has granted interim relief which is sought in final reliefs, at the interim stage final relief cannot be granted. The intention of the K C Nuwal Group behind initiating the action under Section 241 and 242 of theis to restore K C Nuwal’s position as a director of the Appellant Company. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that K C Nuwal Group has not made out a case of oppression of minority shareholders by a majority shareholders in the management of Company’s affairs. The grievance raised by K C Nuwal Group as well as the reliefs sought does not affect thier proprietary rights as shareholder of the Appellant Company. Sections 241 and 242 of thedo not specifically confer the power of reinstatement such a power to reinstate cannot be implied or inferred from any of the powers specifically conferred and that even removal from Directorship can never be held to be an oppressive or prejudicial conduct as held by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Limited VS. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2021 SCC Online SC 272.
15. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the Tribunal while deferring the issue of quasi partnership concluded that K C Nuwal’s directorship is linked with the shareholding. In the absence of any directorship right under the Article of Association or any inter se agreement, the Tribunal could not have come to prima facie finding and passed the impugned order without deciding that the Appellant is a quasi-partnership, no relief could have been granted directing reinstatement of K C Nuwal as a Director and Vice Chairman of the Company.
16. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that K C Nuwal’s vacation of his office as a director is attributable to his own failure to disclose his interest in AGT and that such cessation of Directorship due to operation of law cannot be said to prejudice the interest of any shareholder. Such cessation of office was not on account of with any act or omission of Appellant or other Respondents, but automatic by the operation of Section 184 r/w Section 167 of the. K C Nuwal failed to comply with his duty under Section 184 of the Act, to forthwith disclose his interest in AGT. He was well aware of his obligation to disclose his interest in other entities in the prescribed format as was duly informed at the board meeting held on 26.05.2014.
17. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that K C Nuwal approached the Tribunal seeking interim reliefs, whereas K C Nuwal had already ceased to a Director of the Appellant Company. Further, after a period of 5 months the Tribunal passed the impugned order wrongly reinstating K C Nuwal as the Director of the Appellant during the pendency of the proceedings. The impugned order has effected status quo ante and not status quo i.e. reverted the factual matrix to a position 7 months prior to the date of impugned order, when the Appellant informed K C Nuwal of the automatic vacation of his office as director and 1 month prior to even filing of the Company Petition. This tantamount to passing a mandatory injunction at the interim stage. Such a relief can only be granted to restore status quo and not establish a new set of things differing from the state, which existed on the date of institution of the suit. Status quo ante without even coming into a finding that K C Nuwal Group has made out a strong prima facie case of a higher standard than required for a prohibitory injunction, balance of convenience is in their favour and interim order necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which could not be compensated in terms of money. In such circumstances, the impugned order is in clear contradiction of the settled position of law and has been passed without even arriving at a prima facie finding as regards the issue of whether the Appellant is a quasi partnership and K C Nuwal’s breach of Section 184 of the Act, is liable to be set aside.
18. Per contra, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 (K C Nuwal) submitted that the Appellant has failed to challenge or rebut any of the findings of the Ld. Tribunal that Respondent No. 16/Company Secretary (CS) had informed about the shareholding of Respondent No. 1 (K C Nuwal) in AGT. The Company Secretary was required to ensure due compliance under Section 184 of theand for the purpose help and guide K C Nuwal in filing the proper form. A prima facie case is made out by K C Nuwal Group and balance of convenience rests in their favour. In the absence of any challenge to these crucial findings of the Tribunal there is a deemed admission of the same by the Appellant and Respondent No. 5 to Respondent No. 16.
19. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 further submitted that the Appellant misled this Appellate Tribunal to obtain a stay on the impugned order by stating that the Company Petition was filed after lapse of 9 months and advanced notice of this Appeal has been served on the Respondents. Actually, the Respondent No. 1 was ousted at the mid night intervening between 30.07.2020 and 31.07.2020 with unilaterally retrospective effect from 07.11.2019 vide a letter from the Respondent No. 16/CS then the K C Nuwal Group has filed Company Petition on 29.08.2020 i.e. within a month. It is also submitted that the Appellant has misled the Tribunal that the K C Nuwal is not the Executive Director of the Appellant Company since 07.11.2019 and has vacated the office. The Appellant made a false statement before this Appellate Tribunal to suggest that Respondent No. 1 was properly served with copy of the Appeal while it was not so served. A defective copy of the Appeal vide email dated 22.02.2021 at 05:47 PM was served on the Respondents and before passing ex-parte order by this Appellate Tribunal on 25.02.2021, the Appellant did not serve corrected copy of the Appeal. Therefore, the Respondent No. 1 at the time of passing interim order could not appear before this Appellate Tribunal.
20. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Appellant has approached this Appellate Tribunal with unclean hands as the Appellant has concealed and suppressed material facts, key documents and annexures which were integral part of the pleadings and submissions made by the parties before the Tribunal. It is settled law that the parties approaching a court must present before it entire record and must not fraudulently present only those documents which favour their own cause.
21. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that K C Nuwal (R1) acquired interest in AGT after seeking due approval/clearance/permission from SN Nuwal Group (R5 and R6) they categorically offered to grant monies to Respondent No. 1/ K C Nuwal Group to acquire stake in the Company/AGT. The Respondent No. 1 on several occasions informed/updated the Appellant and its official, Khushboo Pasari (R16) and all directors including S N Nuwal Group about his interest in AGT. In support of the argument he drew our attention towards the correspondence exchanged between the parties regarding K C Nuwal interest in AGT.
22. It is further submitted that disclosure was made even before K C Nuwal acquired interest in AGT. For this, referred email dated 17.01.2019 wherein K C Nuwal informed S N Nuwal and Manish Nuwal regarding his intention to acquire IT Company and they offered to provide funds from the family account itself. It is also submitted that on 22.06.2020, S N Nuwal wrote to K C Nuwal acknowledging that in May, 2019 K C Nuwal Group acquired AGT, in which K C Nuwal Group are majority shareholders and on the same day S N Nuwal wrote to all directors of the Appellant that in May, 2019 K C Nuwal Group acquired AGT. It clearly establishes the concealment of the fact in respect of knowledge of K C Nuwal’s interest in AGT. The Appellant and the R-5 to R-16 have not refuted to being aware of K C Nuwal’s disclosure prior to 29.07.2020 in their rejoinder arguments or refuting existence of email dated 22.06.2020. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 cited the Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Ravi Raj Gupta & Ors. Vs. Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2009) SCC Online Del 381 Para 6, 8 and Suryakant Gupta Vs. Raja Ram Com Products (Punjab) Ltd. (2001) SCC Online CLB 5 Para 23. In these Judgments it is held that if the directors who also holds majority shareholding are aware of the interest of each other, the question of further disclosure does not arise.
23. K C Nuwal duly informed Khushboo Pasari/CS about his interest in AGT on 03.05.2019 and requested her to inform the RoC and others. On 28.06.2019 the shareholding structure in AGT was communicated to Khushboo Pasari/CS in writing. Khushboo Pasari/CS vide email dated 10.04.2020, 22.04.2020, 28.04.2020 and 14.05.2020 categorically stated that AGT is owned and controlled by K C Nuwal Group. It is also to be noted that Khushboo Pasari vide email dated 10.04.2020 sent a draft letter and MBP-1 to K C Nuwal for signatures, categorically mentioning the name of AGT. No affidavit has been filed by Khushboo Pasari/CS denying any of the above events. It is also to be noted that the findings in para 63 of the impugned order are not challenged by Khushboo Pasari. She has been grossly remiss in her duties and has in fact ignored several requests made by K C Nuwal to make the disclosure of his interest in AGT to relevant authorities.
24. It is submitted that it is not a case of the Appellant that K C Nuwal has not disclosed his interest in AGT. But admittedly, Appellant’s case is that the disclosure is not made in the prescribed format. It is categorically stated that the non-disclosure by the K C Nuwal of his shareholding and directorship in AGT was not in requisite form. Emails exchanges between the parties clearly established disclosure of interest in AGT.
25. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that Section 184 (1) requires disclosure of a director’s interest in a prescribed format at the first meeting of the board after the acquisition of interest in another entity by a director. In the present case, AGT was acquired on 02.05.2019, an intimation with respect to the same was sent to Khushboo Pasari/CS on 03.05.2019 with a request to intimate RoC and others. On 06.05.2019, Khusbhoo Pasari/CS was reminded about the same over a phone call. Without prejudice the above, even if the discloser of shareholding/directorship in Form MBP 1 is not provided, it may only result in violation of Section 184(1) and not Section 184(2) of the. Section 184(2) mandates disclosure of interest by a director in the board meeting where an agreement is being entered into with an entity in which the director has an interest. The disclosure can be oral and/or in writing. The word prescribed has not been included in Section 184 (2) of the. Accordingly, the Section 184(2) to stands substantially complied with. Section 184 (1) has no link with Section 167 (1) (c) and (d), as the disclosure of terms of any contract or arrangement is only stipulated under Section 184 (2). Section 184 (1) is general obligation on the directors to disclose their interest in the prescribed format annually. Therefore, a non disclosure of interest under Section 184(1) in the prescribed format would not lead to the automatic vacation enshrined under Section 167.
26. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Respondent No. 1 raised several issues of operation and mismanagement, illegalities fraud non-compliance with the board of directors and the majority shareholders of the Appellant. Therefore, it is not a directorial dispute. Thus, there is no substance in this Appeal. Therefore, the Appeal be dismissed.
27. Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 & 3 supports the argument advanced by the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1.
28. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant submitted in rejoinder argument that K C Nuwal though was not physically present at the board meeting dated 07.11.2019. However, he constructively participated in the same as he was aware that there was an agenda item to discuss on hiring the AGT premises for the Appellant Company. The courts have recognized that a director should not act in a manner so as to put his personal interest in conflict with his fiduciary duty to act in the interest of the Company.
29. After hearing Ld. Sr. Counsels for the parties, we have minutely examined the documents on record.
30. Following issues arose for our consideration: -
(i) Whether K C Nuwal contravened the provision of Section 184(1) of the Act, if yes consequences
(ii) Whether K C Nuwal contravened the provisions of Section 184(2) of the Act, if yes consequences
(iii) Whether the Tribunal ordered for reinstatement of K C Nuwal as director under Section 242 (4) of the
(iv) Whether without deciding the issue of quasi partnership, such interim relief cannot be granted
Issue No. (i)
Whether K C Nuwal contravened the provision of Section 184(1) of the Act, if yes consequences
31. In this matter the whole controversy arises when Khushboo Pasari/CS sent a letter through email on 31.07.2020 which is in Para 7 of this Judgment.
32. In the aforesaid letter, it is mentioned that the R-1/ K C Nuwal was under an obligation to make a disclosure of shareholding in AGT, immediately after acquiring the shareholding in or about 02.05.2019 and he made no disclosure about the shareholding in AGT to Appellant till July 29, 2020 and his disclosure of directorship in AGT dated May, 03, 2019 was not in requisite form MBP 1 under the Companies Act, 2013. To rebut this contention, the Respondent No. 1 has filed the exchange of emails.
33. Aforesaid correspondence is not denied by Khusbhoo Pasari and any of the directors of the Appellant Company. On 03.05.2019 email was sent to Khushboo Pasari that K C Nuwal and Rahul Nuwal became director in AGT from 02.05.2019 and requested to inform RoC and others if required. This fact is admitted by Khushboo Pasari in email dated 30.07.2020 it means it is admitted fact. The only defect is pointed out that such disclosure was not in requisite form i.e. Form MBP 1.
34. Thereafter, on 28.06.2019 the shareholding of K C Nuwal, Rahul Nuwal and Rahil Nuwal was also informed to Khushboo Pasari and also requested to inform RoC and others if required. When she received aforesaid emails, being a Company Secretary she should have immediately assist K C Nuwal and sent him prescribed format. Thus, it is amply proved that K C Nuwal has immediately informed the Appellant Company that he is shareholder and director in AGT w.e.f. 02.05.2019.
35. K C Nuwal on 17.01.2019 sent an email to S N Nuwal (R-5) and Manish Nuwal (R-6) informing that he intends to sell the 3% shares of the Appellant, and to utilise such amount for setting up a new business for his son Rahil. On 23.02.2019 Manish Nuwal (R-6) sent an email to one Mr. Chandra Shekhar Rathi, that K C Nuwal required fund for starting IT Company and to purchase office space at Mumbai. Therefore, Manish Nuwal directed Rathi to transfer 40 Crores in two tranche to K C Nuwal’s account. It means from very inception aforesaid facts were in the knowledge of S N Nuwal Chairman of Appellant and Manish Nuwal MD of Appellant, not only this, they have arranged funds also for the same.
36. In Para 63 of the impugned order, the Ld. Tribunal gave following findings which are not challenged. Otherwise, also proved from the aforesaid correspondence.
“63……………..
(vi) It is not the case of the Respondents that A1 has not disclosed his interest in AGT. The interest in AGT was informed to the Company Secretary in writing, though A1 has not filed the required Form MBP 1 at the initial point of reporting.
............
............
(xiv) R14, the Company Secretary of R1 has received the information as to the shareholding of the Applicants in AGT and in view of this as a professional, R14, was expected to guide and advise the Director in filing proper form in consonance with the Rules and Regulations.”
37. Now, we have considered whether K C Nuwal has contravened the provisions of Section 184(1) of the. Section 184(1) of theis reproduced as under:-
“Section 184(1): Disclosure of interest by director.— (1) Every director shall at the first meeting of the Board in which he participates as a director and thereafter at the first meeting of the Board in every financial year or whenever there is any change in the disclosures already made, then at the first Board meeting held after such change, disclose his concern or interest in any company or companies or bodies corporate, firms, or other association of individuals which shall include the shareholding, in such manner as may be prescribed.”
38. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 184(1) of the Act, Rule 9 (1) of the Companies (meeting of board and its powers) Rules, 2014 for disclosure form MBP-1 is prescribed.
39. In Section 184(1) deals the occasions when the director is required to disclose his concern or interest in any company or companies or bodies corporate, firms or other associations of individuals. In the present case, K C Nuwal was required to disclose his interest in AGT Company when he acquired the shares i.e. on 02.05.2019 in a prescribed form MBP-1. Undisputedly, K C Nuwal vide email dated 03.05.2019 informed Khushboo Pasari that he became the director in AGT from 02.05.2019 and requested to inform RoC and others. Thereafter, vide email dated 28.06.2019 informed Khusbhoo Pasari that he has acquired 31,76,751 shares in AGT. It is true that K C Nuwal has not furnished information in prescribed form i.e. MBP-1. We are of the view that K C Nuwal has substantially complied with the requirement of Section 184 (1) of the.
40. We are in agreement with the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 that non-compliance of Section 184(1) has no link with Section 167 of the. Section 184(4) of theprovides that if a director of the company contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), such director shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. Thus, non-compliance of Section 184(1) would not lead to automatic vacation of the office as director of the Company.
Issue No. (ii)
Whether K C Nuwal contravened the provisions of Section 184(2) of the Act, if yes consequences
41. Section 184(2) reads as under:-
“Section 184(2): Every director of a company who is in any way, whether directly or indirectly, concerned or interested in a contract or arrangement or proposed contract or arrangement entered into or to be entered into—
(a) with a body corporate in which such director or such director in association with any other director, holds more than two per cent. shareholding of that body corporate, or is a promoter, manager, Chief Executive Officer of that body corporate; or
(b) with a firm or other entity in which, such director is a partner, owner or member, as the case may be, shall disclose the nature of his concern or interest at the meeting of the Board in which the contract or arrangement is discussed and shall not participate in such meeting: Provided that where any director who is not so concerned or interested at the time of entering into such contract or arrangement, he shall, if he becomes concerned or interested after the contract or arrangement is entered into, disclose his concern or interest forthwith when he becomes concerned or interested or at the first meeting of the Board held after he becomes so concerned or interested.”
42. It is an admitted fact that on 07.11.2019 in the board meeting after discussion it was resolved to take the premises of AGT on rent for the Appellant Company. Admittedly in this board meeting K C Nuwal was not present. According to Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant in the agenda of the board meeting one of the item for discussion was to take the AGT premises on rent and the agenda was served on K C Nuwal. Therefore, even if, he was not present in the meeting, it be presumed that constructively he was present in the meeting. We are not convinced with this argument. In the meeting, dated 07.11.2019 director S N Nuwal and Manish Nuwal (R-5 and R-6) and Company Secretary Khushboo Pasari were present and they were well informed that K C Nuwal is a director in AGT but they have not raised any objection. Therefore, we are of the view that K C Nuwal has not contravened the provisions of Section 184(2) of the. Therefore, he is not liable for the consequences as provided under Section 167 (1) (c) and (d) of the.
Issue No. (iii)
Whether the Tribunal ordered for reinstatement of K C Nuwal as director under Section 242 (4) of the
43. As we have noted that K C Nuwal has not vacated office as director w.e.f. 07.11.2019. The Tribunal by the impugned order issued an injunction from implementation of notice dated 30.07.2020. The Tribunal has not passed any order of reinstatement of K C Nuwal as director. The Tribunal while exercising the powers under Section 242 (4) of the Act, on the Application of any party to the proceedings, make any interim order which he thinks fit for regulating the conduct of the company affairs upon such terms and condition as appear it to be just and equitable. In the facts of the present case the interim order is just and equitable.
Issue No. (iv)
Whether without deciding the issue of quasi partnership, such interim relief cannot be granted
44. It is argued on behalf of the Appellant that Ld. Tribunal without giving finding that the Appellant Company is a quasi partnership could not grant interim relief, as prayed by K C Nuwal.
45. We are unable to convince with this argument, while granting the interim relief Ld. Tribunal has only examined the legality of the letter (notice) dated 30.07.2020 and granted the relief in reference to this letter.
46. We make it clear that Tribunal shall examine the Company Petition independently without influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
47. The Tribunal has rightly granted the interim relief, we find no ground to interfere in the impugned order. Thus, the Appeal is dismissed. However, no order as to costs. Interim order passed by this Appellate Tribunal stands vacated.
