- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) These appeals have been preferred from two interim orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka at the instance of Respondent 1. Respondent 1 had filed a writ petition on 26-6-2002, inter alia, seeking to impugn the validity of an agreement entered into in 1997 between some of the shareholders of Respondent 1 and the appellant. Under that agreement (hereafter referred to as "the pledge agreement") the said shareholders who are Respondents 7 to 11 before us agreed to pledge their shareholding in Respondent 1 with the appellant by way of security in respect of an earlier agreement (referred to as "the investment agreement") entered into between the appellant on the one hand and Respondent 1 on the other. Respondent 1 was not a party to the pledge agreement.
(3.) In terms of the investment agreement the appellant had agreed to invest 52 million US $ approximately in Respondent 1 Company in consideration for the issuance of preference and equity shares in Respondent 1 to the appellant. The investment agreement mentioned the fact that by way of collateral security the pledge agreement was to be executed between five named shareholders of Respondent 1 and the appellant.;