1 caa-1-2011.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2011 IN COMPANY APPEAL NO.1 OF 2011 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.60 OF 2006 Shah Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd & Ors .. Appellants versus Pravinchandra Hirji Shah & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Nitin Thakkar, Sr.Advocate a/w Rohan Rajadhyaksha i/by Desai & Chinoy for the appellants. Mr.F.E.D’Vitre, Sr.Advocate a/w Rishabh Shah i/by Rajani Associates for the respondents. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 2nd December 2011. P.C.: . Heard parties on the question of interim relief. Mr.Thakkar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that implementation and execution of the order under appeal, should be stayed or else the company cannot function. He submits that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the appellant, he is ready and 2 caa-1-2011.doc willing to make a statement that the appellants will not give effect to the resolution dated 24th May 2006 till final hearing and disposal of this appeal. In addition, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, Mr.Thakkar states that the appellants are ready and willing to permit and allow one of the original petitioners to attend the Board meetings and they would give due notice thereof so also allow him to inspect records and proceedings of the Board meetings or otherwise till the hearing and the final disposal of this appeal. 2} On the other hand, it is argued that the relief in terms of para 57 is not restricted to representation of only one of the petitioners and particularly the original petitioner No.1 as a Director in proportionate representation. 3} Bearing in mind the nature of the controversy and finding prima facie substance in the submissions of the appellants so also having admitted the appeal, interest of justice would be served if it is directed that the order under challenge shall not be executed and implemented until the final hearing and disposal of the appeal subject, however, to the statement of Mr.Thakkar, being accepted as undertaking to this Court 3 caa-1-2011.doc and equally the appellants allowing the original respondent No.1 to participate and attend the meetings of the Board of Directors in his capacity as pro-time Director till the final hearing and disposal of the appeal. He shall be entitled to all notices of Board meetings and will get all benefits including remunerations and allowances for the Board meeting. The respondent No.1 is stated to be based in Nairobi. However, respondent No.9 be served with notice on his behalf. But respondent No.9 not to attend the meetings, as his representative. Company application for interim relief is disposed off in these terms. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)