TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, argued that the petitioner's shareholding was reduced. However, it has been restored which is evident from gift deed and transfer deeds. Even income tax return 20092010 shows that his shareholding was restored to 33.3%. The documents gift deed and share transfer deed are duly signed by the father of the petitioner namely respondent no.2. These documents show that the share certificates amounting to 33.5% have been transferred to the petitioner although no entry in the Register of Members of the company has been made. The main prayer is rectification of member's register. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I feel that interest of justice would be served if alienation of land in question is stayed till the next date of hearing. Accordingly the respondents are restrained from alienating property situated in the village Bhandup, Taluka Kurla, District Bombay (the detailed description of the property is available at pages 122 and 123 of C.P.) The aforesaid order has been necessitated to safeguard the interest of the petitioner particularly when learned counsel for the respondent has accepted that n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rated that the order being in exercise of judicial discretion, the Appellate Court ought not to interfere therewith and substitute its own discretion except where such discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or where the court whose order has been appealed from, had ignored the settled principles of law, regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. 6. A question of law, as is comprehended in Section 10F of the Act, would arise indubitably, if a decision which is the foundation thereof, suffers from perversity, following a patent error on a fundamental principle of law or disregard to relevant materials or cognizance of irrelevant or nongermane determinants. The Apex Court in Purnima Manthena case (supra) has held that the Appellate Court should generally not interfere if the pleadings of the parties are incomplete at the threshold stage and the lower forum concerned seeks only to ensure a working arrangement visavis the dissension and postpone fuller and consummate appreciation of the rival assertions and the recorded facts and the documents at a later stage. The Appellate Court may decide to entertain an appeal or not, bas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom an inherent right of filing a suit, unless barred by law. It was underlined that while conferring such a right of appeal, a statute may impose restriction or condition in law, limiting the area of appeal, to question of law or sometime to a substantial question of law and ruled that whenever such limitations are imposed, those are to be strictly adhered to. 44. This Court in Wander Ltd. (supra), while dealing with appeals against orders granting or refusing a prayer for interlocutory injunction, did reiterate that the same, being in exercise of judicial discretion, the appellate court ought not interfere therewith and substitute its own discretion except where such discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or where the Court whose order has been appealed from, had ignored the settled principles of law, regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. It was enunciated, that appeal against exercise of discretion is an appeal on principle and the appellate court would not reassess the materials and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below, if it was reasonably possible on the materials avai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t thereof to a future point of time till the completion of the essential legal formalities would not ipso facto fructify into a verdict to generate a question of law to be appealed from. However, an omission to record a finding even on a conscious scrutiny of the materials bearing on the issues involved in a given case, may be termed to be one. Be that as it may, in any view of the matter, the appellate forum though exercising a jurisdiction which otherwise may be coordinate with that of the lower forum, ought to confine its judicial audit within the layout of the adjudgment undertaken by the forum of lower tier. This is imperative, more particularly in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction qua a decision on discretion rendered at an introductory stage of any proceeding, otherwise awaiting final adjudication on merits following a full contest. It is settled that no adjudication at the preliminary stage of a proceeding in a court of law ought to have the attributes of a final verdict so as to prejudge the issues at that stage, thereby rendering the principal determination otiose or redundant. This is more so, if the pleadings of the parties are incomplete at the threshold stage....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o , who allegedly had no authority to do so, he having resigned from the company. She had asserted her express and implicit reservation in this regard and her disapproval not only of the constitution of the Board of Directors since then but also of the decisions taken from time to time. Without recapitulating the stream of developments that had occurred, suffice it to mention, that after a series of intervening legal proceedings, she finally did submit a petition before the CLB amongst other under Sections 397, 398,402/403/404 and 406 of the Act alleging oppression and mismanagement and highlighting in that regard, the imminent possibility of alienation of the vital assets of the company through a purported scheme of demerger to the undue benefit of other Directors of the Board of the company. In contradiction, the appellants and the contesting Directors have not only endorsed the validity of the meetings on or from 9.4.2013 contending that respondent No. 1 though intimated thereof, had opted out therefrom and on the basis of the record, have sought to demonstrate her participation in the meetings, amongst others on 24.5.2013, 22.8.2013 and the Annual General Meeting held on 18.12.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en cognizance, to pass its order at that stage, and not beyond. 49. As it is, though a colossus of facts with the accompanying contentious issues are involved, having regard to the stage at which the order of the CLB had been passed, no exhaustive examination of the factual and legal aspects ought to have been undertaken by the High Court to record its conclusive deductions on the basis thereof. Keeping in view the stage wise delineation of the jurisdictional frontiers of the forums in the institutional hierarchy as codified by law, the High Court's quest to unravel the entire gamut of law and facts involved at the preliminary stage of the proceeding before the CLB and to record its findings on all issues involved on merits did amount to prejudging those, thereby rendering the petition before the CLB redundant for all intents and purposes. 50. In the instant case, though the CLB, as a matter of fact, did not record any view on the merits of the case while deferring the consideration of the interim relief , being satisfied with the undertakings offered on behalf of the appellants and other contesting Directors, the High Court has, by the impugned decision, decisively furni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is perverse or arbitrary. 8. It is the case of the appellant that the order has been passed in a cursory manner and the reason for stating this is, by that order the Company Law Board has in effect stopped the business of the appellant no.1. The appellant no.1 carries on business of development of land by constructing apartments on that and selling the apartments. Therefore, by way of impugned order, it is alleged, the appellant no.1 has been restrained from developing the land, stopped from constructing flats and from selling the flats. 9. The board in paragraph 5 of the order dated 29th October, 2015 has only stayed alienation of land in question until the next date of hearing. The order has been passed on 29th October, 2015 and the next date of hearing was 4th December, 2015. The reason why this interim arrangement was also ordered can be found in the last paragraph of the order. It is because only respondent no.2, who is appellant no.2 herein, had filed the reply and appellant nos.1 and 3 herein had sought time to file reply. They were granted four weeks time to file the reply and the respondents, who are petitioners before the board were granted two weeks thereafter to file ....