JUDGMENT :- 1. The plaintiff is the applicant in both the Original Applications. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the defendants and their officers, agents, servants, representatives, successors, assignees or anyone claiming through them are not entitled to set up or carry on any academy, association, organization, society, trust, entity or company in the name of the plaintiff Company, viz., "Indian Academy of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery" or any similar name and for a consequential order restraining the defendants and their officers, agents, servants, representatives, successors, assignees or anyone claiming through them from setting up or carrying on any academy, association, organization, society, trust, entity or company in the name of "Indian Academy of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery" or any similar name. 2. Pending disposal of the abovesaid suit, the plaintiff filed O.A.No.1 of 2015 praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with setting up or carrying on of the third respondent Academy under its present name or in any other name similar to that of the Applicant Company. Likewise, the plaintiff also filed Original Application No.2 of 2015 praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with the General Body Meeting of the third respondent Academy scheduled to be held on 10th January 2015, pursuant to the Notice dated 26.11.2014 issued by the third respondent. 3. This Court, by ex-parte order dated 06.01.2015, granted interim injunction in both the applications till 19.01.2015. Thereafter, the respondents appeared and the interim order was further extended from time to time and is in force as on date. 4. The case of the applicant-plaintiff is as follows: It is a Company limited by guarantee and incorporated under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, with various charitable objectives, out of which, promotion of research in medicine, health care and related fields in Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery for the benefit of society, is one such principal objective. The applicant-Company was promoted by its President and Director Prof. Mohan Kameswaran, who along with other Doctors, who are highly reputed in the field of ENT Surgery, envisaged the formation of an academic body to serve as a platform for academicians, irrespective of their age or affiliations in the field of ENT medicine. It is thus with the abovesaid noble object, the applicant-Company was incorporated. Mohan Kameswaran, who along with other Doctors, who are highly reputed in the field of ENT Surgery, envisaged the formation of an academic body to serve as a platform for academicians, irrespective of their age or affiliations in the field of ENT medicine. It is thus with the abovesaid noble object, the applicant-Company was incorporated. The Certificate of Incorporation of the applicant-Company was issued by the Registrar of Companies, Chennai, on 24.09.2014. Soon after its incorporation, the applicant-Company proceeded to commence its activities by conducting the inaugural convention from 12th to 14th December 2014 in Chennai, which was attended approximately by 500 Doctors from across India. The applicant-Company also launched its Web-site - http://iaohns.in/ and also enrolled about 385 members. Thus, the applicant-Company has already established strong reputation and goodwill amongst the medical community and the public at large in the field of Otorhinolaryngology. While that being so, the President of the applicant-Company received a notice, dated 26.11.2014 from the third respondent as a representative of the first respondent, indicating that the first respondent was actively taking steps to commence an Academy under the name and style of "Indian Academy of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery", i.e. the third respondent, with the identical name of the applicant-Company. Strangely, the letter-head of the said notice shows the President of the applicant-Company also as its member, while the President of the applicant-Company has never consented for being appointed as a member of the third respondent-Academy. The said notice claimed that the third respondent is an Academic wing of the first respondent-Association without indicating as to when the so-called Academy was formed or in what manner. The said notice contemplated convening of a General Body Meeting of the third respondent on 10.01.2015 at Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The proposed Agenda for the said General Body Meeting set out in the said notice, was for seeking approval of Indian Academy of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, as the Academic wing of the first respondent-Association. Therefore, the President of the applicant-Company was constrained to inform the second respondent, who is the Honorary Secretary of the first respondent, that steps are being taken by the first respondent to set up the third respondent-Academy, which is unlawful and would invite appropriate legal action, as the third respondent-Academy contains the same name as that of the applicant-Company. Therefore, the President of the applicant-Company was constrained to inform the second respondent, who is the Honorary Secretary of the first respondent, that steps are being taken by the first respondent to set up the third respondent-Academy, which is unlawful and would invite appropriate legal action, as the third respondent-Academy contains the same name as that of the applicant-Company. The second respondent sent E-mail to certain individuals who appear to be the members of the third respondent-Academy, the so-called Governing Council and called upon them to try and reach an amicable solution. However, the notice dated 26.11.2014 issued by the third respondent on behalf of the first respondent, has not been withdrawn, and the first respondent intended to proceed with further steps and establish and carry on the third respondent-Academy. Therefore, the above suit and the present interlocutory applications were filed with the relief as stated supra. 5. The third respondent-Academy has filed counter affidavit, which was adopted by the respondents 1 and 2. The case of the third respondent who is the contesting party in these applications, as stated in the counter affidavit, is as follows: The third respondent is an Academic wing of the first respondent, which in turn is an Association of Otolaryngologists of India. The first respondent is an apex Association of the Otolaryngologists from all over India. The third respondent is in existence from 2002-2003. The third respondent conferred Honorary Fellowship to many eminent members of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India (AOI) and Dr.S.Kameswaran, father of Dr.Mohan Kameswsaran was also Patron of the Academy. The first respondent has been regularly holding its scientific conferences and this year's conference was scheduled to be held from 9-11 January 2015 at Raipur. On 27.09.2014, the Governing Council Meeting of the third respondent-Academy along with the first respondent-Association's office bearers decided to hold the Academy's Convocation and General Body Meeting in Raipur during the first respondent's (AOI) Conference on 10.01.2015 and honour eminent AOI members. At this juncture, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff and ex-parte interim orders were obtained, causing hardship to the first respondent and also to the third respondent. The applicant-Company (plaintiff) suppressed material facts before this Court. The first respondent is an Association, which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 at Bombay in the year 1948. The applicant-Company (plaintiff) suppressed material facts before this Court. The first respondent is an Association, which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 at Bombay in the year 1948. In May 2002, the first respondent-Society, in its 54th Conference at Bangalore, decided to form an Academic wing, namely the third respondent, with various objectives, including to promote knowledge of medical sciences through scientific activities, especially in Otolaryngology. One of the Governing Council members of the third respondent-Academy is none other than Dr.Mohan Kameswaran, who is the President and Director of the applicant-Company. In the course of the said 54th Conference of the first respondent at Bangalore, the Academic wing of the first respondent-AOI was formed and the same was named as the third respondent-Academy, i.e. Indian Academy of Otorhinolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery and Dr.Mohan Kameswaran paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- by way of Bank Draft, dated 18.12.2003, through letter dated 24.12.2003 as admission and life subscription for the Fellow of the third respondent-Academy. The receipt dated 02.01.2004 was also issued to Dr.Mohan Kameswaran. Therefore, he is a Fellow of the third respondent-Academy from the year 2003. This fact was suppressed by him while filing the above suit. Still, he is a Fellow of the third respondent-Academy. Therefore, incorporation of the applicant-Company on 24.09.2014 before the Registrar of Companies, Chennai, is illegal. It is true that the notice dated 26.11.2014 was issued by the third respondent as a representative of the first respondent. In the abovesaid notice, it was correctly indicated that the first respondent was actively taking steps to commence the Academy in the name and style of Indian Academy of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, which is the name in existence from the year 2002. This fact is well within the knowledge of Dr.Mohan Kameswaran based upon his letter, dated 24.12.2003 and the receipt issued by the third respondent as stated supra. The applicant-Company wilfully misrepresented the facts before the Registrar of Companies and got themselves registered as a Company, without disclosing the existence of the first respondent-Association and the third respondent-Academy, thereby, causing confusion among the medical community and the general public at large. 6. The applicant-plaintiff has filed a common rejoinder and disputed the contentions raised by the respondents. The applicant-Company wilfully misrepresented the facts before the Registrar of Companies and got themselves registered as a Company, without disclosing the existence of the first respondent-Association and the third respondent-Academy, thereby, causing confusion among the medical community and the general public at large. 6. The applicant-plaintiff has filed a common rejoinder and disputed the contentions raised by the respondents. In the rejoinder, it is specifically stated that after the interim orders were granted by this Court in these applications on 06.01.2015, the applicant received a letter dated 15.01.2015 through E-mail on 16.01.2015, from the first respondent/D1 stating that the third respondent was the Academic wing of the first respondent-Association and that they had decided to change the name of the third respondent-Academy and they would abide by the decision of this Court in these proceedings. Therefore, it is contended by the applicant-Company that the third respondent lacks the locus-standi to contest these proceedings in the light of the first respondent's letter dated 15.01.2015. The copy of the said letter dated 15.01.2015 was annexed with the common rejoinder of the applicant-Company. 7. While hearing these applications, this Court on 17.04.2015, directed the learned counsel for the respondents to produce the Minutes of the Resolution passed in 67th General Body Meeting held on 10.01.2015 of the first respondent's Governing Body and also the letter of the year 2003 addressed by Prof.R.C.Deka to Dr.Mohan Kameswaran. The abovesaid direction was issued by this Court on being prompted by the letter dated 15.01.2015 of the first respondent, wherein a reference was made about the said 67th AOI General Body Meeting held on 10.01.2015, wherein a decision was said to have been taken to the effect that, due to similarity in the name of the applicant-Company, the AOI will suspend its activities and is willing to bring about the resolutions in the change of the name in the AOI Governing Body and General Body Meeting, as per the direction of this Court. 8. To the said direction, learned counsel for the respondents has filed additional typed set of papers on the next date of hearing, producing only the extract of the Resolution passed by the first respondent in its 67th General Body Meeting held on 10.01.2015, without producing the Minutes of the meeting, as directed by this Court. 8. To the said direction, learned counsel for the respondents has filed additional typed set of papers on the next date of hearing, producing only the extract of the Resolution passed by the first respondent in its 67th General Body Meeting held on 10.01.2015, without producing the Minutes of the meeting, as directed by this Court. He further submitted that on verification of the records of the first respondent-Association, the letter written by Prof.R.C.Deka to Dr.Mohan Kameswaran in the year 2003, could not be traced. 9. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the applicant-Company and argued the matter. Mr.G.Ravikumar, learned counsel appeared for the respondents and made his submissions. Both sides also filed their respective written submissions. 10. Heard both sides and perused the material documents available on record and their written submissions. 11. The applicant-plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. Pending suit, they have sought for the interim reliefs as stated supra. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to such reliefs in the main suit, has to be considered and decided only after conducting trial and also by considering the respective pleadings of the parties and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence that may be adduced by them in support of their claim. Therefore, this Court, at this stage, while considering the interim applications, has to only see as to whether the plaintiff-Company has made out a prima-face case for grant of interim reliefs and also to see as to whether the balance of convenience is in its favour and that by not granting such interim reliefs, whether any irreparable injury would be caused to the applicant/plaintiff-Company. 12. From the pleadings of the respective parties in these applications and the submissions made by their respective counsels, it is seen that the crux of the matter in dispute is in respect of the name of the third respondent-Academy, i.e. "Indian Academy of Otorhinolaryngology--Head & Neck Surgery". Admittedly, both the applicant-Company as well as the third respondent-Academy are having one and the same name, as stated supra. It is not in dispute that though the applicant and the third respondent, are having the same name, the applicant-Company got itself incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, as is evident from the Certificate of Incorporation issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Registrar of Companies, Chennai, dated 24.09.2014. It is not in dispute that though the applicant and the third respondent, are having the same name, the applicant-Company got itself incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, as is evident from the Certificate of Incorporation issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Registrar of Companies, Chennai, dated 24.09.2014. The said Certificate of Incorporation clearly shows that the applicant-Company is incorporated in the name of the Indian Academy of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, under the Companies Act, 2013 on 24.09.2014 and that the Company is limited by guarantee. Though it is claimed by the third respondent that they are the Academy of the first respondent-Association, with the same name, established as early as in the year 2002 and that the same is in existence all these years, it is an admitted fact that the third respondent was not registered with any statutory body like the Registrar of Companies under the Companies Act or under the Societies Registration Act or any other statutory authority. On the other hand, it is only claimed that the third respondent is an Academic wing of the first respondent-Association. At this juncture, it is to be noted that there is no similarity of the names of the applicant-Company and the first respondent-Association and there is no dispute between them with regard to their respective names. The dispute is only between the applicant-Company and the third respondent-Academy. Under the above stated facts and circumstances, it is clear that the applicant-Company is having a statutory backing of registration with the abovesaid statutory body, whereas it is not so in the case of the third respondent-Academy, even though they claim to be in existence from 2002 onwards. 13. It is contended on behalf of the third respondent-Academy that though it is not a registered one, the same being the Academic wing of the first respondent-Association, is in existence from 2002 onwards, and that the President and Director of the applicant-Company is also a Fellow member and that the applicant-Company cannot be established with the same name and get itself incorporated under the Companies Act by suppressing the abovesaid fact. I am afraid as to whether such a contention on behalf of the third respondent could be accepted, in view of the inconsistent stand taken by the third respondent in their notice, dated 26.11.2014 and also in the Notice & Agenda for 67th AOI Annual General Body Meeting, which was scheduled to be held on 10.01.2015. A perusal of the said Agenda, more particularly Agenda No.19 shows that the General Body of the first respondent seeks for approval of the Indian Academy of "Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery", as an Academic wing of the first respondent-Association of Otolaryngologists of India (AOI). It is crucial to note that under the said Agenda, approval was sought for from the General Body only for the Academy of "Otolaryngology" and not "Otorhinolaryngology". However, the letter/notice, dated 26.11.2014 issued by the third respondent referred as though the third respondent-Academy is an Academy of Otorhinolaryngology, as seen from its letterhead of the said notice dated 26.11.2014. Therefore, it is evident from the above two documents that there is a confusion among the respondents themselves with regard to the name of the third respondent-Academy as to whether it is an "Academy of Otolaryngology" or the "Academy of Otorhinolaryngology". At this juncture, it is better to understand the difference between these two terminologies. In common terms, a Doctor specialising in Ear, Nose and Throat, is called as ENT Specialist. On the academic side, it is called as Oto-rhino-laryngology (Oto--Ear, Rhino--Nose and Laryngo--Throat). Thus, according to the applicant, the third respondent-Academy was intended to be commenced or established only in the field of "Otolaryngology", whereas the applicant was established in the field of "Otorhinolaryngology". 14. Further, in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent in paragraph 13, it is admitted that the abovesaid notice dated 26.11.2014 was issued correctly indicating that the first respondent was actively taking steps to commence an Academy under the name and style of "Indian Academy of Otorhinolaryngology". Thus, even according to the third respondent, only through the letter/notice dated 26.11.2014, the first respondent was actively taking steps to commence the third respondent-Academy. Therefore, this categorical contention of the third respondent goes contra to the other stand taken by them that they are in existence even from the year 2002. 15. Thus, even according to the third respondent, only through the letter/notice dated 26.11.2014, the first respondent was actively taking steps to commence the third respondent-Academy. Therefore, this categorical contention of the third respondent goes contra to the other stand taken by them that they are in existence even from the year 2002. 15. Further, a perusal of the letter dated 15.01.2015 issued by the first respondent, annexed with the common rejoinder of the applicant-Company, addressed to Prof.Mohan Kameswaran, indicates as though the first respondent resolved to suspend its activities and willing to bring about the resolution in the change of the name of the third respondent-Academy due to similarity in the name with that of the applicant-Company. For proper appreciation, the said letter dated 15.01.2015 is extracted hereunder: "THE ASSOCIATION OF OTOLARYNGOLOGISTS OF INDIA Dr.Rakesh Gupta (Emblem) AOI Head Office Hon. Secretary, AOI EYE & ENT Hospital, P: +91-771-2426559 First Floor, M:+91-9242-23860 Opp. New Bus Stand E.mail: eye2ent@gmail.com Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India Website: www.aoiho.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ref.No.AOI/Ryp/Jan/02 Raipur, Date: 15.01.2015 To Prof.Mohan Kameswaran, President & Director, Indian Academy of Otorhinolaryngoloy Head & Neck Surgery (IAOHNS), Secretariat: Madras ENT Research Foundation (P) Ltd., No.1, 1st Cross Street, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028 (TN). Sub: High Court Case Madras C.S.No. /2014 - Reg. Ref: Notice received dt.10.01.2015. Respected Sir, Regards. The Association of Otolaryngologists of India (AOI) Governing Body & The 67th AOI General Body Meeting dt.10.01.2015 was held at Raipur (C.G). I hereby communicate the decision taken during the meeting as following: 1. Indian Academy of Otorhinolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery (IAOHNS) was functioning under Presidentship of Dr.R.C.Deka as the academic wing of The Association of Otolaryngologists of India (AOI) since 2003. 2. The AOI Governing Body & the 67th General Body has resolved that due to similarity of the name, the AOI will suspend its activities & willing to bring about the resolutions in the change of the name in the AOI governing and general body meetings as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court. 3. The AOI has not done any academic activity in the 67th Annual Conference of AOI at Raiput (C.G) under the Indian Academy of Otorhinolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery (IAOHNS) as was earlier proposed. In the final Scientific Programme schedule this was never mentioned. 4. The AOI will abide by the decisions & directions by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras on this matter. In the final Scientific Programme schedule this was never mentioned. 4. The AOI will abide by the decisions & directions by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras on this matter. Thanking you, (Sd/-) (Dr.Rakesh Gupta) (Hon. Secretary AOI) Seal of Secretary, The Association of Otolaryngologists of India ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALL LEGAL MATTERS SUBJECT TO RAIPUR (AOI HEAD OFFICE) JURISDICTION" 16. While hearing this matter, upon perusal of the said letter dated 15.01.2015, this Court, as stated supra, wanted to know as to what exactly was the deliberation in the 67th General Body Meeting held on 10.01.2015, more particularly, with regard to the issue involved in this matter. Therefore, this Court, on 17.04.2015, directed the learned counsel for the respondents to produce the Minutes of the said meeting, on the next date of hearing. On the other hand, instead of producing the Minutes of the meeting, the learned counsel for the respondents only produced the extract of the Resolution passed in the said meeting, which reads as follows: "Extract of the Resolution passed by the Association of Otolaryngologists of India (AOI) Governing Body 8-9th Jan 2015 & 67th General Body held on 10th Jan 2015 Extract of the resolution passed by the AOI Governing Body 8-9th Jan 2015 and 67th General Body Meeting held on 10th Jan 2015 at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur venue of 67th AOICON held at Raipur CG. Resolved that after the receipt of order copy of interim injunction till 19.01.2015 by the High Court, Madras as per the case filed by President and Director Prof.Mohan Kameswaran of Indian Academy of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Chennai, the AOI Governing Body held on 8-9th Jan 2015 and 67th Annual General Body Meeting held on 10th Jan 2015 at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur venue of the 67th AOICON held at Raipur CG. Has resolved that the AOI will suspend activities of the Indian Academy Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery for time being and willing to abide by the final order of the Madras High Court pertaining to the similarity of the name of Indian Academy of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery (IAOHNS) which is a academic wing of AOI or any order passed by the Hon'ble Court, Madras regarding the similarity of name or change of name etc. Above resolution was passed only to obey the above interim order of the Hon'ble Court till the finality reached only with respect to Indian Academy of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, the Academic Wing of AOI. Sd/- Dr.Rakesh Guptra Hon. Secretary AOI, Seal of Secretary, Head Office Raipur Chhattisgarh The Association of Otolaryngologists of India" 17. Hereagain, the tenor of the extract of the Resolution passed in the said 67th General Body Meeting, dated 10.01.2015 is to be understood to mean that the first respondent will suspend the activities of the third respondent in view of the similarity in the name to that of the applicant-Company. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in support of his submissions, invited this Court's attention to the letter addressed by Dr.Mohan Kameswaran, dated 24.12.2003, accepting his nomination as a Fellow in the third respondent-Academy, which reads as follows: "To Prof.R.C.Deka, MS, DLO, Head, Dept. of Otolaryngology, AIIMS, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi. Dear Prof.Deka, Thank you for your letter regarding the Indian Academy of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery and my nomination as a Fellow. I deem it a great honour and have pleasure in accepting it. I have sent an Union Bank of India Draft drawn in the name of "IAOHNS" for Rs.5,000/- dated 18.12.2003 DD.No.011289 payable at New Delhi. I will be grateful if you could kindly intimate to me the time and venue of the proposal first meeting at Kolkata so as to enable me to plan my return flight to Chennai. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- Dr.Mohan Kameswaran 24/12/2003" 19. A perusal of the said letter dated 24.12.2003 indicates that Dr.Mohan Kameswaran has only accepted his nomination as a Fellow in the Indian Academy of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery (IAOHNS) and not in respect of an Academy of Otorhinolaryngology. In fact, this Court wanted to know the contents of the letter written by Prof.R.C.Deka to Dr.Mohan Kameswaran, which is referred to in the above extracted letter, and accordingly, this Court directed the learned counsel for the respondents to produce the same to find out as to what was the name of the Academy which was intended to be started in the year 2003. However, the said letter was not produced before this Court and on the other hand, it is stated in the written submissions produced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said letter is not traceable by the third respondent-Academy. No doubt, the receipt dated 02.01.2004 said to have been issued to Dr.Mohan Kameswaran by IAOHNS for having received Rs.5,000/- on account of Fellowship being conferred on him, is placed before this Court. It is seen that the said receipt contains the name of the third respondent as IAOHNS, i.e. the Indian Academy of Otorhinolaryngology Head & Neck Surgey. Hereagain, there is a difference with regard to the name of the third respondent-Academy between the letter written by the Director of the applicant-Company, namely Dr.Mohan Kameswaran and the receipt said to have been issued to him by the third respondent-Academy, as stated supra. Further, it is stoutly contended by the applicant that Dr.Mohan Kameswaran has not given his consent to be the member of the Governing Council of the third respondent and that his name in the letter-head was used without his knowledge. It is needless to state that these are all matters for trial to find out as to what was the intention of the parties at that relevant point of time while writing such letter or issuing such receipt, as stated supra. Further, even assuming that the third respondent-Academy is established much earlier to the applicant-Company and is in existence all these years, considering the fact that till this date, the third respondent having not taken any steps legally against the applicant challenging the registration with the same name under the Companies Act, I am of the view that prima-facie case is very much in favour of the applicant. No other clinching and material document is placed before this Court to take a contra view. It is needless to state that in between two entities having similar names, one which is having a statutory backing, has to be preferred, while considering the contention of the rival parties, more particularly, while weighing with the prima-facie case for grant of interim orders. 20. It is needless to state that in between two entities having similar names, one which is having a statutory backing, has to be preferred, while considering the contention of the rival parties, more particularly, while weighing with the prima-facie case for grant of interim orders. 20. Hence, based on the above stated facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that the applicant-Company is a registered body having been incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, and that the third respondent-Academy is not a registered body with any statutory authority, I am of the firm view that a strong prima-facie case has been made out by the applicant-Company for continuing the interim orders in both these applications, pending suit. Under the given facts and circumstances, the balance of convenience is also in their favour. Further, I am of the view that irreparable injury would be caused to the applicant-Company if the third respondent is also permitted to use the same name as that of the applicant during the pendency of the suit, and undoubtedly, it would cause great confusion in the minds of the general public, more particularly, of medical professionals. Accordingly, I find every justification to make the interim orders already granted by this Court in both the applications, absolute. 21. Consequently, the interim orders granted in both these applications, are made absolute and both the applications are allowed. No costs.