9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 28th August 2007 passed by learned Company Law Board. The said order reads as under: Heard on interim prayers. I record the statement of the Sr. Counsel for the 2nd Respondent that without prejudice to the arbitration clause, the status quo as on date would be maintained in regard to the lands of the Company as also to the lands referred to in interim prayer(ix) of the application till the next date of hearing. 3. The above order would show that the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of land of the company as also in respect of land referred to in interim prayer (ix) of the application. Prayer (ix) of the application reads as under: - (ix) pass ex-parte ad-interim order restraining the Respondents, especially Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned in prayer (ix). Therefore, the order of CLB is that the respondents shall not disturb status quo as explained above, nothing more nothing less. 7. I have heard counsel for both sides. The contention of respondents is that this Court cannot issue any further directions in respect of land as the Court was dealing with contempt petition and the Contempt of Courts Act does not provide for grant of any interim injunction. Reliance is placed by respondents on V.M. Manohar Prasad v N. Ratnam Raju and another (2004) 12 SCC 610. On the other hand, the counsel for petitioner relied upon DDA v Skipper Construction Co.(P) Ltd. and another 1996 (4) SCC 622 and All Bengal Excise Licensees Association v. Raghabendra Singh Ors. 2007 (11) SCC 374 wherei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quo and as already observed by this Court this implied that no construction activities and no parting with the possession of said land and no transfer of title should be there. There is no bar on parties in corresponding with authorities and seeking licenses/permissions/ approvals of projects from government in anticipation of succeeding in the litigation. However, it is directed that respondents during pendency of this petition shall not undertake any development activities over the land and shall not part with possession of the land to any third party and shall not transfer title of the land in question to any third party. Obtaining permission by respondents is at their own risk and costs as for that, there was no injunction granted by CL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
