Tribunal Issues Interim Orders in Shareholder Dispute with High Court Involvement

The Tribunal listed the matter for further consideration due to the likelihood of High Court involvement. The petitioner transferred shares to another party for the company's benefit, facing concerns over irregularities and removal as director without substantial reasons. An urgent motion was made after the High Court rejected a Writ Petition. The Tribunal found a prima facie case for the petitioner, issuing interim orders to maintain the status quo on shareholding and directorship. Respondents were directed to refrain from altering positions, with further proceedings set for November 15, 2018.

---

---

Issues:
1. Ad interim orders requested by the petitioner.
2. Transfer of shares and removal of petitioner as director.
3. Urgent motion before the Tribunal due to rejection of Writ Petition by High Court.
4. Prima facie case in favor of the petitioner and balance of convenience.
5. Directions to respondent regarding shareholding pattern and directorship.

Analysis:
1. The professional representing the petitioner requested ad interim orders, but due to the matter being likely heard by the High Court the same day, the Tribunal decided to list it for further consideration on 03.10.2018.
2. The petitioner, holding 33% shares and having advanced unsecured loans, transferred 17% shares to Respondent No. 2 for betterment of the company. The de-empanelment of the hospital from a government scheme led to the petitioner's concern over irregularities and attempts to safeguard investments. Notices for removal as director were issued without substantial reasons, leading to the petitioner approaching the Tribunal for relief.
3. After the rejection of the Writ Petition by the High Court, an urgent motion was presented to the Tribunal for ad-interim orders, highlighting the urgency and importance of the matter.
4. The Tribunal found a prima facie case in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the potential irreparable loss and negative impact on investments if interim orders were not passed. The balance of convenience favored the petitioner, leading to the directive to maintain the status quo regarding shareholding and directorship until further orders.
5. The respondents were directed to refrain from altering the shareholding pattern or implementing any resolution removing the petitioner as director. In case of any such actions already taken, they were instructed to rectify and restore the petitioner's position. Counter filings were mandated within four weeks for further proceedings on 15th November 2018.

---