ORDER : 1. The plaintiff has filed the present application being G.A. No. 5 of 2024 praying for following reliefs: (a) An interim order be passed directing the respondent no. 2 company to only accept the decision of the valid Board of Trustee of the petitioner No. 4 society as mentioned in paragraph 32 of herein above and accordingly allow the representatives appointed/ nominated by the said Board of Trustees to attend the AGM and cast vote thereat for an on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 and/or the respondent no. 2 company and/or their men, servants, agents or assigns from causing any obstruction in exercising such voting right; (b) An appropriate order be passed restraining respondent no. 2 company and its men, agents and assigns from placing agenda Nos.6 and 7 of the notice pf the AGM dated May 28,2024 of the respondent no. 2 company due to be convened and held on June 24, 2024 at the Registered address of the respondent no. 2 company; (c) The respondent no. 2 company be directed not to act on any communication of the respondent no. 1and /or his nominee or representatives in the name of the petitioner no. 4 society. (d) Ad-interim order in terms of prayers above. (e) Such further or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or direction be given as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. 2. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs have filed several documents containing four volumes. The Counsel for the defendants has raised objections with respect to the said documents. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that though they have filed documents but they will only rely upon the judgments passed by different courts in connection with the present case from the said documents and they will not refer any other documents. 3. The petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the key investment of companies of M.P. Biral Group and are the principal promoters of all the companies of M.P. Birla Group. The petitioner no. 4 is a charitable society and is governed by the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of the society. The petitioner no. 4 was set up under the directions of M.P. Birla and Priyamvada Devi Birla in the year 1984 for educational purposes solely as Philanthropic activity. The petitioner no. 4 is a charitable society and is governed by the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of the society. The petitioner no. 4 was set up under the directions of M.P. Birla and Priyamvada Devi Birla in the year 1984 for educational purposes solely as Philanthropic activity. Priyamvada Devi Birla herself was a Trustee and Member of the Managing Committee since long time until her death. 4. The respondent no. 2 is a joint venture of M.P. Birla Group wherein petitioner no. 1 to 4 collectively represent M.P. Birla Group (the Indian Partner) and the respondent no. 3 is the other partner being the foreign Partner both holding 50% share in the respondent no. 2. The present shareholding pattern of the respondent no. 2 is as follows: 5. Priyamvada Devi Birla died on 3rd July, 2004 and after her demise disputes pertaining to succession of estate left behind by Priyamvada Devi Birla arose. Priyamvada Devi Birla left behind a Will and an application for grant of probate being PLA No. 242 of 2004 was filed. As there was an objection with respect of the said probate proceeding and the same was converted into a Testamentary Suit being T.S. No. 6 of 2004. After the death of the executor of the said Will, the suit is further converted for grant of Letters of Administration. In the said suit, an Administrator Pendente Lite Committee (herein after referred to as APL Committee) has been appointed for the purpose of protection and administration of the estate left behind by Priyamvada Devi Birla till the disposal of the testamentary suit. 6. In the testamentary suit on 18th September, 2020, the following order was passed: “(a) The plaintiff shall implement the decision dated 19th July 2019 and 30th July 2019 of the APL Committee taken by majority as also all the consequential decisions of the APL in furtherance of the said decision and shall be restrained form drawing any benefit personally from out of the assets of the estate of the deceased during pendency of the testamentary suit. (b) Plaintiffs are also restrained from interfering with the decision of the APL and any decision which might be taken by it in future by majority if the same directly or indirectly relates to the estate of the deceased and further the plaintiff no. (b) Plaintiffs are also restrained from interfering with the decision of the APL and any decision which might be taken by it in future by majority if the same directly or indirectly relates to the estate of the deceased and further the plaintiff no. 1, Harsh Vardhan Lodha is restrained from holding any office in any of the entities of M.P.Birla Group during pendency of the suit. (c) Defendants are also restrained by an order of temporary injunction from interfering with the APL’s decision by majority during pendency of the suit.” 7. Being aggrieved with the order dated 18th September, 2020, several appeals have been preferred and the appeals were disposed of by the appellate Court by a common judgment dated 14th December, 2023, and modified the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. The order passed by the appellate Court dated 14th December, 2023, is under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court In SLP(C) No. 4860 of 2024 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the following interlocutory order on 22.03.2024 which reads as follows: “The parties have filed Caveat take notice. We concur with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in paragraph 219 of the impugned judgment. We make it clear that, at this stage, we are not granting any interim relief. If direction /relief is required to applied for, the probate proceedings are pending before the Testamentary Court. The parties can apply in accordance with the law. At this stage, we may note that a very limited issue is required to be decided in the pending probate proceedings and therefore, as per the observations made in paragraph 219 of the impugned judgment, the Testamentary Court will proceed to decide the probate proceedings without paying any heed to the attempts made by the parties to delay the proceedings.” 9. Now on 28th May, 2024, the respondent no. 2 has issued a notice of the 62nd Annual General Meeting to be held at the registered address of the Company at Birla Colony, Bhiwani-127021 on Monday 24th June, 2024 at 11.00AM.The said notice proposes candidature of the respondent no. 4 and one Mr. Shashank for being reappointed as Directors on the Board of the respondent no. 2 company. 2 has issued a notice of the 62nd Annual General Meeting to be held at the registered address of the Company at Birla Colony, Bhiwani-127021 on Monday 24th June, 2024 at 11.00AM.The said notice proposes candidature of the respondent no. 4 and one Mr. Shashank for being reappointed as Directors on the Board of the respondent no. 2 company. In the notice it is also stated that such persons have been proposed by a member pursuant to provisions of Section 160 of the Companies Act, 2013. 10. Learned Senior Advocate representing the plaintiffs submitted that both the said persons represent the Indian Partners on Board of the respondent no. 2 company and none of the petitioners who comprise the Indian Partners of the respondent no. 2 have proposed candidature of such persons being appointed as Directors on the Board of the respondent no. 2 company. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that resolution no. 6 and 7 of the notice of AGM is not with the concurrence of the Indian Partners of respondent no. 2 company and thus vitiates the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement. He submits that the petitioner no. 2 by notices dated 7th June, 2024, proposed the candidature of CA Ravi Kumar Patwa and Justice Shyamal Kanti Chakraborti (Retd.) for being appointed as Directors on Board of the respondent no. 2 company in terms of the provisions of Section 160 of the Companies Act, 2013. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents on the earlier occasion also issued notice of 61st Annual General Meeting and the petitioners have been filed an application for grant of interim order in connection with the 61st Annual General Meeting and this Court by an order dated 22nd September, 2023, passed an interim order directing that even if the AGM has already taken place at the time when this order is passed then also, the defendant no. 2 and/ or its men, agents, servants and /or assigns, scrutinizer and observers appointed for the AGM to refrain from dealing the result of the AGM in respect of Agenda no. 4 and 5 appointment of Sudeep Roy and Smt. Mridula Jhunjhunwala as Directors in respect of which there is a difference in the decision of the trustees and the members of the Managing Committee or giving any effect to or further effect to in respect thereof. 13. 4 and 5 appointment of Sudeep Roy and Smt. Mridula Jhunjhunwala as Directors in respect of which there is a difference in the decision of the trustees and the members of the Managing Committee or giving any effect to or further effect to in respect thereof. 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent no. 1 to 5 have been acting contrary to the orders passed by this Court. He submits that the respondents would try and thwart the action of the petitioner no. 2 by way of either not circulating or opposing the resolutions proposing candidature for appointment of CA Ravi Kumar Patwa and Justice Shyamal Kanti Chakrabarti (Retd) for being appointed as directors of the board of the respondent no. 2 company. 14. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the conduct of the respondent no. 1 raises a serious concern on jeopardizing the rights and interest of the petitioner no. 4 society in particular as well as the collective right of the petitioners. He submits that despite of having ceased to be a Trustee and Member of the Managing Committee of the petitioner no. 4 society, the respondent no. 1 has continued to represent that he is a Trustee and member of the Managing Committee of the petitioner no. 4 society. He submits that despite a restraining order being passed by this Court, the respondent no. 2 company declared that the purported result of the poll purportedly held at 61st AGM on 22nd September, 2023 and increasing attempts to obstruct and block the working of the petitioner no. 4 society. 15. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is every reasonable apprehension that the respondent no. 1, through the respondent no. 2 company may deny and defeat the valuable rights of the petitioner no. 4 society in particular and collective rights of the petitioners in the respondent no. 2 company. 16. Learned Counsel for the defendants submitted that the as per the averments made in the plaint, the defendant no. 2 is a joint venture company and any dispute with regard to such joint venture is a commercial dispute inters of provisions of Section 2(1)(c)(xi) and (xii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and thus the suit filed by the plaintiffs before this Court is not maintainable under law. 2 is a joint venture company and any dispute with regard to such joint venture is a commercial dispute inters of provisions of Section 2(1)(c)(xi) and (xii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and thus the suit filed by the plaintiffs before this Court is not maintainable under law. He submits that the plaintiff has not obtained leave under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to present the plaint. 17. Learned Counsel for the defendants submitted that the suit is also not maintainable before this Court in terms of Sections 241, 242, 242, 244 and Sections 430 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Counsel for the defendants relied upon the judgments passed by this Court reported in MANU/WB/1435/2022 (Bhaskar Gupta vs. Calcutta Club Limited and Others) and submitted that in this case also the plaintiffs have challenged the meetings of the Board of Directors and the plaintiff has to approach before the Tribunal instead of this Court. 18. Learned Counsel for the defendants submitted that the notice of 62nd Annual General Meeting is issued from Bhiwani, Haryana and the meeting is to be convened at the registered address of the respondent no. 2 at Birla Colony, Bhiwani and both are outside of the jurisdiction of this Court and thus the application is not maintainable. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel for the defendants relied upon the judgment reported in (2024) 4 SCC 696 Asma Lateef and Another vs. Shabbir Ahmed and Others and submitted that jurisdiction is the entitlement of the civil court to embark upon an enquiry as to whether the cause has been brought before it by the plaintiff in a manner prescribed by law and also whether a good case for grant of relief claimed has been set up by the plaintiff. 19. Learned counsel for the defendants have also relied upon the judgment reported in 1999 SCC Online Cal 63 Smti Srimati Jaiswal and Another vs. Romi Jaiswal and Another and submitted that as far as India is concerned, the residence of the company is where the registered office is located. Normally, cases should be filed only where the registered office of the company is situate. 20. Normally, cases should be filed only where the registered office of the company is situate. 20. Learned Counsel for the defendants submits that after the order passed by the Hon’ble Division bench dated 14th December, 2023, nothing survives in the suit filed by the plaintiffs as the Hon’ble Division Bench while disposing of the appeal held that the APL cannot interfere with all internal affairs of the companies of all the tiers with the blessing of the testamentary Court. There cannot be any universal or dynamic injunction or direction affecting the future course of action of the companies from the testamentary court, simply because the testatrix could not herself had taken any such action in law. He submits that the Hon’ble division bench had modified the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 21. Learned Counsel for the defendants relied upon unreported order passed in GA. No. 1 of 2024 in C.S. No. 153 of 2024 dated 22nd May, 2024 and submitted that the learned single judge held that the APL could not interfere with the internal affairs of the M.P. Birla Group of companies and the societies and the Hon’ble Judge further held the Hon’ble Division Bench by an dated 14th December, 2023, specifically come to the finding that APL did not have any jurisdiction or right to interfere with the internal affairs of the management of the companies under the M.P. Birla group of companies and the resolution dated 4th March, 2021 has become inoperative. 22. In the year 2023 also, the plaintiffs have filed an application for interim order and by an order dated 22nd September, 2023, this Court has passed the following order: “In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that the petitioner has been able to make out a strong prima facie case to go to trial. The balance of convenience and inconvenience is also in favour of the petitioner. There is an urgency in the matter and the petitioner is not protected at this stage will suffer irreparable loss and prejudice. Preventive orders as prayed for by the petitioner, if refused at this stage, will lead to multiplicity of judicial proceedings. Even if the AGM has already taken place at the time when this order is passed then also, I direct the defendant no. Preventive orders as prayed for by the petitioner, if refused at this stage, will lead to multiplicity of judicial proceedings. Even if the AGM has already taken place at the time when this order is passed then also, I direct the defendant no. 2 and/or its men, agents, servants and /or assigns, scrutinizer and observers appointed for the AGM to refrain from declaring the results of the AGM in respect of Agenda No. 3 and 5 appointment of Sudeep Roy and Smt. Mridula Jhunjhunwala as directors in respect of which there is a difference in the decision of the Trustees and the members of the Managing Committee or giving effect to or further effect to in respect thereof. The interim order shall continue till 30th November 2023 or until further orders. The scrutinizers appointed for the AGM of the defendant no. 2 held on 22nd September 2023 are also directed to keep the decision and all other documents in connection of these agenda referred to hereinabove in a sealed envelope until further orders.” 23. At the time of hearing of the above mentioned application by this Court, the defendants have raised the similar issue with regard to the Companies Act, Commercial Court’s Act, issue of jurisdiction and similar citations were relied upon. This Court held that the defendants have also filed a demurrer application for rejection of plaint and directions have been issued for exchange of affidavit and the court has to hear out the demurrer application. The vote of the EIEI will be cast at the AGM as decided by the Managing committee and nothing will survive in effect of adjudication. This Court held that the application for interim order can be taken up for hearing even pendency of the application for rejection of plaint. The position as was in the year 2023 is still the same. Till date demurrer application has not decided and in the meantime, again the notice of 62nd AGM is issued which is scheduled to be held on 24th June, 2024. 24. As regard to the point of jurisdiction this Court by an order dated 22nd September, 2022, held that the Court is prima facie satisfied that part cause of action as accrued within the jurisdiction of this Court and granted leave to institute the suit in this Court. 24. As regard to the point of jurisdiction this Court by an order dated 22nd September, 2022, held that the Court is prima facie satisfied that part cause of action as accrued within the jurisdiction of this Court and granted leave to institute the suit in this Court. It was further held that is well settled that a plaint cannot be bifurcated and at this stage it cannot be held that this Court does not have jurisdiction to receive try and determine the suit. In view of the above the objections raised by the defendants is decided against the defendants. 25. Now the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to get interim relief in the present application. 26. As per the case of the plaintiff the present valid Board of Trustees comprises of the following persons: (i) Justice K.S. Jhaveri (Retd) (ii) Justice Narayan Chandra Sil (Retd) (iii) Mrs. Nandini Nopany (iv) Mr. Sushil Kumar Daga (v) Mr. Krishna Damani (vi) Mrs. Anamika Lodha (vii) Dr. D.R. Agarwal. 27. The plaintiffs have no objection with regard to the item nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the notice of 62nd Annual General Meeting issued on 28th May, 2024 but is having objection with regard to item no. 6 of the said notice which reads as follows: “Special Business: “6. To consider and, if though fit, to pass with or without modification, the following resolution as an Ordinary Resolution: “RESOLVED that pursuant to the provisions of Section 152 and any other applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 2013(“Act”) read with rules made thereunder (including any statutory modifications or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force), Mr. Kailash Chand Mittal (DIN-00049841) who was appointed as an Additional Director w.e.f. 1st April 2024 by the Board of Directors at its meeting held on 21st March 2024 and whose term of office expires at this Annual General Meeting (AGM) and in respect of whom the Company has received Notice in writing from Member(s) under Section 160 of the Companies Act,2013, proposing his candidature for the office of Director, be and is hereby appointed as a Director of the Company, liable to retire by rotation.” As per the case of the plaintiffs, the Board of Trustees and Members of the Managing Committee of the plaintiff no. 4 has been reconstituted from time to time pursuant to the directions of the defendant no. 4 has been reconstituted from time to time pursuant to the directions of the defendant no. 6 i.e. Committee of Administrators Pendente Lite (APL) by resolutions passed by the majority of the Board of Trustees of the Plaintiff No. 4 in accordance with Rules and Regulations. The total case of the plaintiff based on the powers of the APL Committee. The Hon’ble Division Bench while hearing of the appeal has specifically decided the issue of Powers of APL (Administrator Pendente Lite) in two categories: (i) How far APL can interfere in Company affairs. (ii) Whether APL decisions have to be unanimous or majority view prevails. (iii) The appellate Court has decided the above issues no. 3(i) and 3(ii) as follows: Issue No. 3 (i): “The answer to this issue lies embedded in the previous issues. We cannot but be a bit conservative here. The APL steps into the shoes of the deceased testatrix – nothing more, nothing less. Thus, it cannot exercise powers which the testatrix herself did not have during her lifetime. PDB was the owner of certain specific shares in some of the companies. In such capacity of shareholder, she had all incidental rights such as voting rights, decision making powers, etc. Ownership of shares and rights directly incidental thereto are heritable rights which devolved upon her estate on her demise. But her personal charisma, authority and influence asserted over shareholders and management of other companies, if any, were not heritable and are not ‘property’ which can be the subject-matter of her estate and, consequently, under the adjudicatory authority of the testamentary court. We are required to distinguish here between the rights directly flowing from and incidental to such ownership of shares and those which are remotely derivative from such ownership and not proximate. The former are subject-matters of the estate and the APL can exercise those but the latter (remotely derivative rights) cannot be thrust by the testamentary court or the APL on the respective companies, which are independent juristic entities. We are not deciding any illegality or irregularity of the said companies’ affairs; thus, the concept of ‘lifting the corporate veil’ does not apply. The rights of the testatrix over the companies of the different ‘tiers’ were co-extensive with her rights as owners of the shares of the tier-one companies and incidentally with the rights of those companies as shareholders of the other companies. The rights of the testatrix over the companies of the different ‘tiers’ were co-extensive with her rights as owners of the shares of the tier-one companies and incidentally with the rights of those companies as shareholders of the other companies. The APL, thus, cannot interfere with all internal affairs of the companies of all the tiers with the blessings of the testamentary court. There cannot be any universal or dynamic injunction or direction affecting the future course of action of the companies from the testamentary court, simply because the testatrix could not herself had taken any such action in law. The steps taken by the APL in registering its nominees as members of the companies where the deceased testatrix held shares, in consonance with and in the ratio of the shareholding rights of PDB in each of such companies, is perfectly justified in law. The APL, through its nominees, may very well decide which way the votes of the testatrix’s shares should go and how they would exercise their voting rights and election of directors. The nominees, as such shareholders, may participate in shareholders’ meetings and decision-making processes of the tier-one companies and thus mould the course of action and business decisions of such companies. Since the said tier-one companies are also shareholders of other companies in the secondary and tertiary tiers, the APL, through its nominees, may also decide how to go about asserting the interests of the estate of PDB in the secondary and tertiary tier companies through the tier-one companies’ actions as shareholders of the latter companies. However, such process can only be done in above-board and legal manner and in due process of law. The APL, for example, cannot jump steps to directly take or pre-empt business decisions in respect of the tertiary-tier companies without going through the process of first taking decisions in the first tier companies and getting its decisions approved through the representation of the first tier companies as shareholders in the lower tier companies. As and when any major decision is required to be taken regarding transactions/transfers of the shares themselves, the APL mandatorily has to approach the testamentary court for necessary orders. Also, the APL itself, being the repository of interest of the estate as the representative of the testamentary court, shall have to take appropriate directions and orders from the testamentary court prior to initiating or contesting any litigation. Also, the APL itself, being the repository of interest of the estate as the representative of the testamentary court, shall have to take appropriate directions and orders from the testamentary court prior to initiating or contesting any litigation. However, day-to-day decisions at every stage of such litigation need not be sought from the court, which would be an unnecessary burden on the court and would put an unwarranted spanner in the wheels of the APL. Issue No. 3 (ii) The very composition of the APL brews conflict of interest, since two of the members represent the two warring factions and have left no stone unturned to show their true colours in that regard. Thus, in view of the discussion above, the only way in which the APL can function effectively is for the third member, who is necessarily a retired nominated Judge, to act as arbiter in case of conflict of decision between the other two members of the APL. In case there is no resolution, the third member shall exercise veto power. In case of major decisions (which decisions are ‘major’ for this purpose shall be decided by the third member), the APL may seek appropriate orders from the testamentary court. The APL must also keep in mind that it is not an adjudicatory authority but merely the representative of the estate of the deceased testatrix. Thus, the order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the above extent. Liberty is given to the APL and the parties to approach the testamentary court taking up the letters of administration suit if need be and where there are serious doubts.” 28. In C.S. No. 153 of 2024 an application being G.A. 1 of 2024 was filed by the Eastern India Educational Institution and another for grant of interim order with respect of the notice date 27th February, 2024, wherein an emergency meeting of Managing Committee was called for on 29th February, 2024. The Coordinate Bench of this Court refused to grant ad-interim order and held that: “The Division Bench made a clear distinction between the rights of PDB flowing from the ownership of the shares and those which had been remotely derived from the ownership of such shares being in the nature of control over the promotors’ group or the voters. The Coordinate Bench of this Court refused to grant ad-interim order and held that: “The Division Bench made a clear distinction between the rights of PDB flowing from the ownership of the shares and those which had been remotely derived from the ownership of such shares being in the nature of control over the promotors’ group or the voters. The APL could not exercise power only on the strength of the shares which were owned by the PDB but not on those shares over which PDB had earlier remote or derivative control. Thus, in my prima facie view, the APL could not interfere with the internal affairs of the M.P. Birla Group of companies and the societies. Upon disposal of the appeal on 14th December 2023, the Division Bench coming to a specific finding that the APL did not have any jurisdiction or right to interfere with the internal affairs or the management of the companies under the M.P. Birla group of companies, the resolution dated 4th March 2021 has become inoperative.” 29. At the time of the order passed by this Court on the previous occasion wherein the plaintiffs have prayed for an interim order with respect to the AGM dated 22nd September, 2023, at the relevant point of time there was no order of the Hon’ble Division Bench dated 14th December, 2023. After the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench the circumstances has been changed as the Hon’ble Division Bench held that the testamentary Court cannot pass orders directly in respect of the management and affairs of corporate/contractual rights of other entities, including companies, trust etc. The Hon’ble Division Bench also held that the very composition of the APL brews conflict of interest, since two members represent the two warring factions and have left no stone unturned to show their colours in that regard. The only way in which the APL can function effectively is for the third member, who is necessarily a retired nominated judge, to act as arbiter in case of conflict of decision between the other two members of the APL. It is also held that the APL must also keep in mind that it is not an adjudicatory authority but merely the representative of the estate of the deceased. 30. It is also held that the APL must also keep in mind that it is not an adjudicatory authority but merely the representative of the estate of the deceased. 30. The question raised by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have not proposed the name of Kailash Chand Mittal to be a director and no documents have been produced by the defendants to establish who has proposed the name of Kailash Chand Mittal, it is also not clear that who will represent the plaintiff no. 4 in the said meeting. The plaintiffs have also raised the question, is there any meeting held in the month of May 2024 along with the Hon’ble two Retired Judges in terms of Section 160 of the Companies Act. It is also submitted that the two Hon’ble Retired Judges have not received any notice communicated by Mrs. Anamika Lodha. 31. This Court also finds that there is a dispute with regard to representation of the plaintiff no. 4. In one hand the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs’ claims that they are appearing for the plaintiff no. 4 also and on the other hand Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury has informed this Court that the plaintiff no. 4 has taken the resolution to appoint him as counsel for the plaintiff no. 4 and he is having the Vakalatnama, affidavit of competency and the resolution of the plaintiff no. 4. Thus there is also a dispute with regard to the representation of the plaintiff no. 4 in the present suit. 32. This Court also finds that the plaintiff can raised all the points urged before this Court before the scrutinizer and in the meeting which is schedule to be held on 24th June, 2024, as per the notice of 62nd Annual General Meeting dated 28th May, 2024. This Court also did not find any materials on record restricting HVL from exercising voting rights on behalf of the society in other entities of the M.P. Birla Group. 33. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, this court finds that the plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case and balance of convenience and inconvenience in their favour for grant of interim order. Accordingly, prayer for interim order is refused at this stage. 34. The defendants are directed to their affidavit in opposition within three weeks, reply if any be filed within two weeks. Accordingly, prayer for interim order is refused at this stage. 34. The defendants are directed to their affidavit in opposition within three weeks, reply if any be filed within two weeks. List the matter on 31st July, 2024, under the heading Adjourn Motion.