2021 (7) TMI 1317

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R VATSAVAYI, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER SH. RAGHU NAYYAR, HON'BLE MEMBER TECHNICAL For the Petitioner: Amol Vyas, Adv. For the Respondent: Naresh Kumar Sejvani, Adv, ORDER Per: Shri Raghu Nayyar, Technical Member l. By this common order in both these matters, the issue of admissibility of the petitions and interim relief, if any, has been considered. In both the cases the Respondent No. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Verma is Respondent No. 2 being a shareholder to the extent of 35 per cent approx. in Respondent No. I Company and is the nephew of Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2. Smt. Ranjana Verma is the wife of She Manish Kumar Verma. It is alleged that Sh. Manish Kumar Verma was favouring an employee of the company, whose performance was being questioned by the petitioners and who was subsequently terminated. Responde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he partnership firms were managed by Respondent No. 2, Mr. Prakash Kumar Sinha in place of Respondent No. 3. However, upon transfer of the partnership businesses into the Respondent No. 1 Company, the ratio of shareholding became skewed. It is also alleged that Mr. Prashant Kumar Sinha was interfering in R-l Company as 'super board'. It is alleged that there is break down of trust between ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Respondent No. 2 & 3 may be injuncted from continuing with the competitive business of the Respondent Company and may further by injuncted from approaching the customers and suppliers of the Respondent Company for soliciting business of the Respondent Company. B. The Respondent No. 2 & 3 may be restrained from acting detrimental to the interest of the Respondent Company and may be injuncted from....