S.J. Kathawalla, J. - (1.) THE above application is taken out by the applicant (original appellant) - -Supermax Personal Care P. Ltd., in Company Appeal (L) No. 10 of 2015 filed in Company Application No. 296 of 2014 in Company Petition No. 13 of 2012 filed before the Company Law Board, Western Region Bench, Mumbai, hereinafter referred to as "the appellant" for the following reliefs: "(a) This hon'ble court be pleased to grant a temporary injunction restraining respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from in any manner acting upon and/or implementing the impugned order dated February 2, 2015, including and qua the properties set but at exhibit 'A' and/or seeking to gain ingress/egress and/or take possession of any property Which forms the subject matter of the impugned order including but not limited to the properties as set out at exhibit 'A'. (b) This hon'ble court be pleased to grant a temporary injunction and/or otherwise issue an order and direction restraining the additional respondent from acting in furtherance of and/or implementing (in any manner whatsoever) the impugned order dated February 2, 2015 and/or the letter dated July 9, 2015, addressed by the additional respondent." The list of properties set out by the appellant in exhibit A to the above company application is reproduced hereunder: "(1) Premises at Laxmi Co -operative Housing Society, Malhotra House, Begumpet, Hyderabad. (2) Flat No. 905, 9th floor, Sriniwas Towers, Hyderabad. (3) Premises at IE/12, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. (4) Plot No. A -292, Road No. 16, Lane 2, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane -400 604."
(2.) FOUR company petitions were filed by respondent No. 2 - -Mr. Rajinder Kumar Malhotra in respect of four different companies before the Company Law Board. The details in respect of the said company petitions are as under: According to respondent No. 2, pursuant to the orders passed by this court, the hostile directors who are acting as nominees of Rakesh Malhotra (respondent No. 5 herein, and son of respondent No. 2) were removed. They, however, wrongfully attempted to obstruct the new management/directors from taking charge of the properties/plant/factory of the four companies. Accordingly, in the four company petitions four separate company applications were filed in respect of each of the aforesaid companies. The details of the said company applications are as under: Annexed to each of the company application was a list of the properties owned by each of the said company in respect of which reliefs were being sought from the Company Law Board. Needless to add that the properties listed in the annexures to the respective company applications were different and not the same.
(3.) BY Company Application No. 296 of 2014, taken out by respondent No. 2 herein qua the company - -Vidyut Metallics P. Ltd., the following reliefs were, inter alia, sought from the Company Law Board: "(b) To pass an order thereby restraining all the respondents, particularly respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 6 by themselves, their servants and agents from (i) using the online accounts of the company; (ii) entering into the properties belonging to the company listed in exhibit T1' annexed to the application; (iii) in any manner whatsoever dealing with and/or disposing of properties, movable or immovable, belonging to the company and/or operating any bank accounts of the company." Exhibit T1 annexed to this application is reproduced hereunder: ;