TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 1335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... For the Respondent : Mr. Rajnish Sinha and Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocates for R-1 to 4, 10 to 12., Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Ms. Vatsala Kak, Mr. Apoorva Chowdhury, Advocates for R-1 & 2., Ms. Renu Gupta, Ms. Sakshi Kapoor and Mr. Sreesh S., Advocates for R- 7 & 8., Mr. Rahul Malhotra and Mr. Varun Garg, Advocates for R-9. ORDER Respondents 1 to 4, 7 & 8 and 10 to 12 has already appeared on 15th October, 2019. Some of them have filed reply affidavit. Notice on all other Respondents has also been served but no prayer has been made for filing of reply affidavit, therefore, the case will be heard on merit. 2. Company Appeal (AT) 268 of 2019 has been preferred by 'Solitaire Capital India & Anr.' -Petitioners before the Tribunal (hereinafter r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 5. Similar plea has been taken by the Contesting Respondents No. 1 to 4 before the Tribunal. According to learned counsel for the Contesting Respondents the allegations under Section 241-242 arise out of the Board Resolution, which is also under challenge before the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal has not granted any ad-interim relief. 6. From the record we find that the Tribunal while going through the records for determining as to whether any interim relief can be passed or not, has noticed the pendency of an arbitral proceeding before the Arbitral Tribunal. It has also noticed that a C.A. No. 422/C-III/ND/201 filed under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Responded No. 2 to the said petition on 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al by filing a fresh application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and in relation to which orders have been reserved on 17.05.2019, the interest of the 1st respondent company will be greatly prejudiced if third party rights are allowed to be created further in respect of the immovable property pending the decision of the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal covered under Sale Deed No. 3543 dated 12.05.2006 as has been done by the respondents thereby evidencing a satisfaction of the well laid down criteria for grant of as-interim relief from the stand point and in the interest of the 1st respondent company and its shareholders, as the said asset is to be protected until the decision of the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal arising out of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to whether the Arbitral Tribunal, which is already deciding the claim of the claimant can decide the question of oppression and mismanagement, if any, caused by a member or members against one or other members or group of members or the Company or such action is prejudicial to the public interest or the interest of the members or company. However, such issue, we are not going to decide in this appeal. It is for the Arbitral Tribunal to determine, if such issue has been raised. 8. In the aforesaid background, the Tribunal rightly held that predominant focus in a Company Petition under Section 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013 is to safeguard the interest of the Company. However, if a party raises the issue of maintainability of the petit....