1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.25 OF 2010 IN COMPANY APPEAL NO.24 OF 2010 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.132 OF 2009 Jer Rutton Kavasmaneck & Anr. .. Applicants versus Gharda Chemicals Ltd & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.P.K.Samdani, Sr.Counsel a/w Mr.Rahul Chitnis a/w Mr.Mitesh Naik a/w Ms.Khyati Ghevaria i/by Dhru & Co for the applicants. Mr.Subramanium, Sr.Counsel a/w Mr.Zal Andhyarujina a/w Mr.Suhas Tuljapurkar a/w Mr.Yogesh Chawak a/w Mr.Nishad Nadkarni i/by Legasis Partners for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr.Sunip Sen a/w Mr.Suhas Tuljapurkar a/w Mr.Yogesh Chawak a/w Mr.Nishad Nadkarni i/by Legasis Partners for respondent Nos.1, 5 and 6. CORAM : R.S.MOHITE, J DATE : 28th June, 2010 P. C.: . This is an application for grant of interim relief. By a separate order passed in the main appeal, appeal has been admitted after hearing of the parties. There will be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (iii). The learned counsel appearing for the applicants states that pending the disposal of the petition before Company Law Board there was also an 2 interim relief in terms of prayer clause (iv) which was made operable except in the ordinary course of business. In my view, there are no proper averments in the company petition which indicate a reasonable apprehension of disposal of the assets of the company. My attention has been drawn to two annexures which are in the nature of press cuttings. Those, however, indicate that respondent No.2 is contemplating making fresh investments out of the monies from the sale of his shares. In none of those articles there is mention of the sale of assets of the company. In my view, interim relief therefore in terms of prayer clause (iv) cannot be granted notwithstanding the fact that it was operating during the pendency of the petition. Company application stands disposed of. (R.S.MOHITE, J)