Page 1

SLP(Crl.)No. 6873 of 2010

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 6873 OF 2010

Mr. Vikram Bakshi & Ors.           …. Petitioner (s)

versus

Ms. Sonia Khosla (Dead) By Lrs.            …. Respondent (s)

With  

SLP(C)No. 23796-23798/2010 Contmt. Pet. (Crl.) No. 4/13 In SLP (Crl.) No. 6873 of 2010

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1.A spate of litigation between the two groups depicts a severe fight between them  

where settlement  appears to be a distant  dream, at  least  as of  now, with tough  

positions taken and on each and every facet/  nuance of the disputes,  they have  

joined issues. However, we are happy to find consensual approach on one aspect at  

least viz. the future course of action that needs to be adopted in these matters which  

1

Page 2

SLP(Crl.)No. 6873 of 2010

have landed in this Court (albeit against interim orders) as the proceedings are still  

pending at different levels either in the Company Law Board or in the High Court.  

This much positive stance, aimed at cutting the corners and edging out the niceties  

for  early  resolution  of  the  main  dispute  between  the  parties  needs  to  be  

commended. For this reason, apart from stating the controversy involved in each of  

the matters,  our purpose would be served in stating the course of action which  

needs to be adopted, as agreed between the parties, without going into the nitty  

gritty of the issues involved. With this introduction we describe hereinbelow the  

nature of the dispute in these petitions.

SLP(Crl) No. 6873 of 2010

2. When the two parties joined together for collaborative business venture, it is but  

natural that the relationship starts with mutual trust and faith in each other. At the  

time of  fostering  such a  relationship,  they expect  that  with  joint  efforts  in  the  

proposed business venture, they would be able to achieve unparallel milestones,  

which would otherwise  be impossible  with their  individual  efforts.  The joining  

together is with the aim of making one plus one as eleven and not two. However,  

over a period of time, if due to unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances/ events,  

the  relationship  becomes  bitter  and  the  two collaborative  partners  fall  apart,  it  

results in a position where one minus one is not only reduced to zero but becomes  

2

Page 3

SLP(Crl.)No. 6873 of 2010

negative. That perhaps is the story of the present litigation and if the disputes are  

not resolved early, either by adjudicatory process or amicably between the parties,  

the negative factor will keep growing and keep widening its fangs which may not  

be conducive to any of the litigants before us.   

3.The respondents  herein  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  Khosla  Group)  are  the  

owners of the prime lands in Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Legally,  

this  land is  owned by Montreaux Resort  Pvt.  Ltd.  (MRL,  for  short)  and share  

holding of the MRL was earlier exclusively held by the family members of the  

Khosla Group. It was their vision to develop this real estate into a tourist resort of  

repute. The Khosla group needed requisite finances and administrative expertise for  

this purpose. The petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the Bakshi Group) extended  

its helping hand. In fact it was conceived as a dream project of both the groups. For  

this purpose MOU dated 21.12.2005 was entered into between Mr. Deepak Khosla,  

Mr.  R.P.  Khosla,  MRL and  Mr.  Vikram Bakshi.  The project  was  joint  venture  

between the Khosla Group and Mr. Vikram Bakshi wherein the Bakshi Group was  

to  pump  in  the  necessary  finances  and  to  take  charge  of  administration  by  

managing the entire project. MRL was the special purpose vehicle for the execution  

of the project. The MOU envisaged transfer of shareholding in MRL by Khosla  

Group to Vikram Bakshi on certain demands made by the latter to the former.  

4.Pursuant to the MOU dated 23.12.2005, Mr. Vinod Surah and Mr. Wadia Prakash  

3

Page 4

SLP(Crl.)No. 6873 of 2010

(nominees of Mr. Vikram bakshi) were appointed as Additional Directors of MRL.  

An agreement dated 31.3.2006 was entered, for executing the proposed project,  

between the respondent, Ms. Sonia Khosla, wife of Mr. Deepak Khosla, Mr. R.P.  

Khosla,  MRL  and  Mr.  Vikram  Bakshi.  The  agreement  recorded  that  51%  

shareholding in the company had been transferred to Mr. Vikram Bakshi. The said  

agreement, inter alia, provided that:

(a) Land  for  the  project  shall  be  purchased  in  the  name of MRL. (b) The  responsibility  of  development  of  lands,  managing the project  and arranging finances  would be that  of  Mr. Vikram Bakshi. (c) Khosla's would be paid a total consideration of Rs.  6.44 crores on completion of different milestones of which an  amount of Rs. 3.30 crores was to be as a loan bearing interest  @ 12% per annum. (d) Khosla's  would  sell  their  entire  shareholding  in  MRL to Mr. Vikram Bakshi.

5.For some reasons (both the groups have their own version in this behalf with  

blame game against each other) the project did not kick off and ran into rough  

weather with the sowing of the seeds of mutual distrust and lack of faith. It led to  

filing of a petition under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act by Ms. Sonia  

Khosla against Bakshi Group, though in that petition she impleaded some of the  

members of Khosla family also as respondents (may be performa respondents). Her  

allegation was that she held 49% shares in the Company which had been further  

4

Page 5

SLP(Crl.)No. 6873 of 2010

reduced to 36% and that the affairs of the  Company were being managed in a  

manner oppressive to the minority shareholders. In this petition she admitted that  

majority shareholding was with Mr. Vikram Bakshi.  

6.The relief prayed for in the said petition, inter alia, was for passing an order for  

removal of the petitioners from the Board of Directors of the Company. Various  

miscellaneous  applications  came  to  be  filed  in  the  aforesaid  petition.  Notably  

among those was an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation  

Act  filed  by  Mr.  Vikram  Bakshi.  Mr.  Vineet  Khosla  also  filed  an  application  

claiming himself to be the Director of the Company and alleging that Mr. Wadia  

Prakash and Mr. Vinod Surah had ceased to be the Directors of the Company on  

30.9.2006  since  they  were  not  confirmed  in  the  AGM  of  the  Company  and,  

therefore, the subsequent appointment of Mr. Vikram Bakshi by the Board was bad  

in law.

7.Another  significant  development  which  took  place  was  that  on  18.12.2007  

purported meeting of the Company was held by Ms. Sonia Khosla and Mr. Vinay  

Khosla  wherein Mr.  Deepak Khosla  and Mr.  R.K.  Garg  were appointed as the  

Directors of the Company and in this meeting the Board of the Company allotted  

6.58 lakhs equity shares to eleven persons of the Khosla Group. It hardly needs to  

be  mentioned  that  the  Bakshi  Group  contends  that  this  alleged  meeting  on  

18.12.2007 was of illegally constituted Board. The Bakshi Group also taken the  

5

Page 6

SLP(Crl.)No. 6873 of 2010

position  that  Mr.  Wadia  Prakash  and  Mr.  Vinod  Surah  continue  to  be  legally  

appointed Directors and likewise appointment of Mr. Vikram Bakshi by the Board  

of the Company was also as per law.  

8.The Company Law Board (CLB) passed orders dated 31.1.2008 directing the  

maintenance of status quo with regard to the shareholding and the Directors of the  

Company  as  it  existed  on  the  date  of  the  filing  of  the  petition  i.e.  13.8.2007.  

Observations were made in this order that the respondent-Sonia Khosla had tried to  

overreach the CLB by changing it composition and to increase the share capital of  

the Company.

9.Aggrieved by this order of the CLB, Mr. R.P. Khosla filed the appeal in the High  

Court  of  Delhi.  However,  he  sought  permission  to  withdraw  the  appeal.  On  

11.4.2008,  noticing that  the parties  had agreed that  C.P.  No. 114/2007 is  to be  

withdrawn and the status quo as on the date of filing of the said petition would be  

maintained, the said C.P. was dismissed as withdrawn. Sonia Khosla had also filed  

appeal  against  the same very order dated 31.1.2008 of the CLB. This was also  

dismissed by the High Court on 22.4.2008, albiet on merits. Both Mr. R.P. Khosla  

as  well  as  Sonia Khosla  filed Review Petitions seeking review of  orders  dated  

11.4.2008 and 22.4.2008 respectively. These Review Petitions were also dismissed  

on 6.5.2008.  

10.As the things stood at that stage, the effect of the aforesaid proceedings was that  

6

Page 7

SLP(Crl.)No. 6873 of 2010

the order dated 31.1.2008 passed by CLB continued to operate. It is at that stage,  

the litigation started taking a different turn altogether.  

11.Ms.  Sonia  Khosla  filed  an  application  under  Section  340  of  the  Code  of  

Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) before the CLB alleging that forged documents were  

filed before the CLB. However, while this application is still pending before the  

CLB, in October, 2008 she filed another application under Section 340 Cr. PC in  

the  High  Court  of  Delhi  on  the  same  very  grounds  which  were  taken  in  the  

application before CLB. She sought prosecution of the petitioners under Section  

195(i)(b)(ii) read with Section 340 Cr. PC alleging that the minutes of the AGM of  

the Company allegedly held on 30.9.2006 were forged.  The reason given therein to  

approach the High Court was that she was forced to file the petition in the High  

Court as  there was a complete inaction on the part of CLB on her application  

before it. She sought to rest her application on sub-section 2 of Section 340 Cr. PC  

for its maintainability in the High Court. In this application orders dated 15.2.2010  

are passed by the High Court and that order is the subject matter of challenge in the  

present proceedings. As can be easily discerned, the petitioners' main contention is  

that application u/s 340 Cr. PC is not maintainable.  

SLP(C)No. 23796-98 of 2010

12.As  mentioned  above,  in  the  Company  Petition  filed  by  Ms.  Sonia  Khosla  

7

Page 8

SLP(Crl.)No. 6873 of 2010

interim orders dated 31.1.2008 were passed by the CLB directing the parties to  

maintain status quo with regard to shareholding and the Directors of the Company  

as  it  existed on the  date  of  filing of  the Company Petition i.e.  13.8.2007.  The  

consequences thereof was not to give effect to the purported Board meeting of the  

Company on 14.12.2007 wherein Mr.  Deepak Khosla  and Mr.  R.K.  Garg were  

inducted as Directors and there was also an allotment of 6.58 lakhs equity shares to  

the  persons  of  Khosla  Group.  Further,  as  mentioned  above  this  order  was  

challenged both by R.P. Khosla as well as Ms. Sonia Khosla by filing appeal in the  

High Court. Whereas appeal filed by Mr. R.P. Khosla was dismissed on 11.4.2008,  

the appeal of Ms. Sonia was dismissed on merits on 22.4.2008 and the Review  

Petitions filed by both of them were also dismissed on 6.5.2008. However, Mr.  

R.K. Garg who was taken as Director in the purported meeting held on 14.12.2007  

also felt aggrieved by the order of the CLB. The effect of the status quo ante order  

was  that  he  could  not  be  treated  as  the  Director  of  the  Company  during  the  

subsistence of the said order. Mr. R.K. Garg challenged this order by filing a writ  

petition in the High Court of Delhi on 26.2.2008. In that writ petition orders of  

status  quo  were  passed  on  7.4.2008  However,  on  9.4.2009,   Mr.  R.K.  Garg  

(Respondent  No.  1  herein)  withdrew this  petition  as  alternate  remedy of  filing  

appeal against the impugned order of the CLB is provided under Section 10 F of  

the Companies Act. After withdrewing the writ petition the Respondent No. 1 filed  

8

Page 9

SLP(Crl.)No. 6873 of 2010

Co. Appeal No. (SB) 23 of 2009. In this appeal the company judge of the High  

Court has passed orders dated 13.4.2010 issuing notice in the said appeal, in the  

application  for  condonation  of  delay  as  well  as  in  the  stay  application.  

Simultaneously, the High Court has also stayed the operation of the orders dated  

31.1.2008  passed  by  CLB  in  so  far  as  it  has  cancelled  the  shareholding  and  

Directorship  of  Respondent  No.  1.  The  instant  present  Special  Leave  Petition  

impugns the aforesaid order dated 13.4.2010 passed by the High Court, primarily  

on the ground that since the appeal is time barred till the delay is condoned there is  

no appeal in the eyes of law and, therefore, the High Court could not have passed  

interim orders.  

13.Though the aforesaid two SLP's are the main proceedings before us, even in  

these proceedings Contempt Petitions and petitions under Section 340 Cr. PC are  

filed. Moreover, narration of the events disclosed above would demonstrate that  

main proceedings are the Co. Petition filed by Ms. Sonia Khosla under Section  

397-98 of the Companies Act before the CLB where issues relating to the affairs of  

the Company are to be thrashed out. However, from this on case, number of other  

proceedings have sprung up. In fact, as of today more than 80 cases are pending  

between the parties. Most of these do not even touch the main dispute as they are in  

the  nature  of  either  Contempt  Petitions,  (Civil  or  Criminal)  or  petitions  under  

Section 340 Cr. PC etc.

9

Page 10

SLP(Crl.)No. 6873 of 2010

14.As stated in the beginning of this order, though it was going to be collaborative  

efforts of the two groups in developing a dream project and for certain reasons the  

parties have drifted apart, one legal action which was triggered with the filing of  

the Company Petition by Ms. Sonia Khosla before the CLB, has today swollen into  

an  acrimony  of  gigantic  proportion.  With  all  these  incidental  and  peripheral  

proceedings, which are allowed to take centre stage, the main dispute which is the  

subject matter of company petition before the CLB has taken a back seat. There  

have  been  attempts  made  on  different  levels,  during  court  proceedings,  to  see  

whether there could be amicable resolution of the disputes between the parties.  

However, as on date these attempts have been of no avail.

15.According to us it would have been more appropriate for the parties to atleast  

agree to resort to mediation as provided under Section 89 if CPC and make an  

endeavour to find amicable solution of the dispute, agreeable to both the parties.  

One of the aims of mediation is to find an early resolution of the dispute. The  

sooner dispute is resolved the better for all the parties concerned, in particular, and  

the society, in general.  For parties, dispute not only strains the relationship but also  

destroy it.   And, so far as society is concerned it  affects its peace.  So what is  

required is resolution of dispute at the earliest possible opportunity and via such a  

mechanism where the relationship between individual goes on in a healthy manner.  

Warren Burger, once said:

10

Page 11

SLP(Crl.)No. 6873 of 2010

“The obligation of the legal profession is… to serve as healers of   human conflict… (we) should provide mechanisms that can produce   an  acceptable  result  in  shortest  possible  time,  with  the  least   possible expense and with a minimum of stress on the participants.   That is what justice is all about.”

MEDIATION is one such mechanism which has been statutorily brought into place  

in our Justice System.  It is one of the methods of Alternative Dispute Resolution  

and resolves the dispute  in  a way that  is  private,  fast  and economical.   It  is  a  

process in which a neutral intervener assists two or more negotiating parties to  

identify matters of concern, develop a better understanding of their situation, and  

based upon that improved understanding, develop mutually acceptable proposals to  

resolve those concerns.  It embraces the philosophy of democratic decision-making  

[Alfin, et al., Mediation theory & Practice, (2nd Ed. 2006) Lexis Nexis.

16.Thus, mediation being a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution is a shift from  

adversarial litigation.  When the parties desire an on-going relationship, mediation  

can  build  and  improve  their  relationships.   To  preserve,  develop  and  improve  

communication, build bridges of understanding, find out options for settlement for  

mutual gains, search unobvious from obvious, dive underneath a problem and dig  

out underlying interests of the disputing parties, preserve and maintain relationships  

and  collaborative  problem solving  are  some  of  the  fundamental  advantages  of  

mediation. Even in those cases where relationships have turned bitter, mediation  

11

Page 12

SLP(Crl.)No. 6873 of 2010

has been able to produce positive outcomes, restoring the peace and amity between  

the parties.  

17.There is always a difference between winning a case and seeking a solution. Via  

mediation, the parties will become partners in the solution rather than partners in  

problems.  The beauty of settlement through mediation is that it may bring about a  

solution which may not only be to the satisfaction of the parties and, therefore,  

create a win win situation, the outcome which cannot be achieved by means of  

judicial adjudication.  Thus, life as well as relationship goes on with Mediation for  

all the parties concerned and thus resulting into peace and harmony in the society.  

While providing satisfaction to the litigants, it also solves the problem of delay in  

our system and further  contributes towards economic,  commercial  and financial  

growth and development of the country.

18.This Bench is of firm opinion that mediation is new dimension of  access to  

justice. As it is one of the best forms, if not the best, of conflict resolution.  The  

concept of Justice in mediation is advanced in the oeuvres of Professors Stulberg,  

Love,  Hyman,  and  Menkel-Meadow  (Self-Determination  Theorists).  Their  

definition  of  justice  is  drawn  primarily  from  the  exercise  of  party  self-

determination. They are hopeful about the magic that can occur when people open  

up honestly and empathetically about their needs and fears in uninhibited private  

discussion. And, as thinkers, these jurists are optimistic that the magnanimity of the  

12

Page 13

SLP(Crl.)No. 6873 of 2010

human spirit can conquer structural imbalances and resource constraints.  

Professor Stulberg, in his masterful comment on the drafting of the Uniform Model  

Mediation Act, Fairness and Mediation, begins with the understated predicate that  

“the meaning of fairness is not exhausted by the concept of legal justice.” In truth,  

the more pointed argument advanced in the article is that legal norms often diverge  

quite dramatically from our notion of fairness and the notion of fairness of many  

disputants. Legal rules, in Stulberg’s vision, are ill-equipped to do justice because  

of  their  rigidity  and inflexibility.  Professors Lela Love andJonathan M. Hyman  

argue  that  mediation  is  successful  because  it  provides  a  model  for  future  

collaboration. The authors state that the process of mediation entails the lesson that  

when  people  are  put  together  in  the  same room and made  to  understand  each  

other’s  goals,  they  will  together  reach  a  fair  resolution.  They  cite  Abraham  

Lincoln’s  inaugural  address  which  proposed  that  in  a  democracy,  “‘a  patient  

confidence in the ultimate justice of the people’ to do justice among themselves . . .   

is a pillar of our social order.” Professor Carrie Menkel-Meadow presents a related  

point of view in making the case that settlement has a political and ethical economy  

of its own and writes:  

“Justice, it is often claimed, emerges only when lawyers and their  clients  argue  over  its  meaning,  and,  in  turn,  some  authoritative  figure or body pronounces on its meaning, such as in the canonical  cases of the late-twentieth century… For many years now, I have  

13

Page 14

SLP(Crl.)No. 6873 of 2010

suggested that there are other components to the achievement of  justice.  Most  notably,  I  refer  to  the  process  by  which  we  seek  justice  (party  participation  and  empowerment,  consensus  rather  than  compromise  or  command)  and  the  particular  types  of  outcomes  that  might  help  to  achieve  it  (not  binary  win-lose  solutions, but creative, pie-expanding or even shared solutions).”

Justice in mediation also encompasses external developments, beliefs about human  

nature and legal regulation. Various jurists are drawn to mediation in the belief that  

litigation and adversarial warring are not the only, or the best ways to approach  

conflict. And how optimistically and skeptically mediators assess the capabilities of  

individual parties and institutional actors to construct fair outcomes from the raw  

material of human conduct.

Mediation ensures a just solution acceptable to all the parties to dispute thereby  

achieving ‘win-win’ situation.  It is only mediation that puts the parties in control  

of both their disputes and its resolution. It is mediation through which the parties  

can communicate in a real sense with each other, which they have not been able to  

do since the dispute started. It is mediation which makes the process voluntary and  

does not bind the parties against their wish.  It is mediation that saves precious  

time, energy as well as cost which can result in lesser burden on exchequer when  

poor litigants are to be provided legal aid.  It is mediation which focuses on long  

term interest and helps the parties in creating numerous options for settlement. It is  

mediation that restores broken relationship and focuses on improving the future not  

14

Page 15

SLP(Crl.)No. 6873 of 2010

of dissecting past. It is based on an alternative set of values in which formalism is  

replaced by informality of procedure, fair trial procedures by direct participation of  

parties, consistent norm enforcement by norm creation, judicial independence by  

the  involvement  of  trusted  peers,  and  so  on.  This  presents  an  alternative  

conceptualization of justice.

19. We have purposely stated the aforesaid advantages of mediation process in  

a  hope that  if  not  now, in near future the parties  may agree on exploiting this  

mechanism to their advantage.   

20. In this  backdrop,  Mr.  Dushyant  Dave,   the learned Senior Counsel  who  

appeared for  Bakshi  Group in SLP (C) No. 6873 of 2010 made a fervent plea  

before this Court to invoke the provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution and put  

an end to the entire litigation between the parties pending in various courts by  

putting the parties to such terms, which this court finds to be equitable for both the  

parties. On behalf of Bakshi Group he also gave the offer to surrender/give 50% of  

land  to  the  Khosla  Group  and  also  an  amount  of  Rs.  6.40  Crores,  He  even  

submitted that if this Court finds the said amount to be inadequate the Court would  

be empowered to fix higher amount. However, that was not acceptable to the other  

side as according to them not only they are entitled to get the entire land which  

belongs to them but the amount of compensation which Bakshi Group is liable to  

pay to  them would  be  many times more  than the  amount  offered.  Lest  we be  

15

Page 16

SLP(Crl.)No. 6873 of 2010

misunderstood, we are not blaming either side. We have indicated this, just to give  

a hint of the magnitude of imbroglio that has occurred  between the parties. At the  

same time, as there are many cases of different nature pending in different courts it  

is  not  possible to exercise powers under Article 142 of  the Constitution and to  

resolve all those cases. However, we feel sad about the state of affairs. The dispute  

which has arisen, out of MOU/ collaboration agreement between the parties is not  

unique or unprecedented. Such type of differences do arise. Day in and day out  

there are litigations of the kind which is filed in the CLB by Ms. Sonia Khosla.  

However, what is unprecedented is the monstrous proportions which this litigation  

has  assumed  with  the  multiplication  of  proceedings  between  the  parties  today  

which arose out of one petition before the CLB.  

21. In fact, though the learned Senior Counsel for the parties had argued the  

matters before us at length on the previous occasions, at the stage of conclusions of  

the arguments, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Cama appearing for Khosla Group  

suggested for an early decision of the Company Petition before the CLB as a better  

alternative so that at least main dispute between the parties is adjudicated upon at  

an early date. He was candid in his submission that the issues which are subject  

matter of these two Special Leave Petitions and arise out of the proceedings in the  

High Court, have their origin in the orders dated 31.1.2008, which is an interim  

order passed by the CLB. He thus, pointed out that once the Company Petition  

16

Page 17

SLP(Crl.)No. 6873 of 2010

itself is decided, the issues involved therein namely whether Board meeting dated  

14.12.2007 was illegal or whether Board meeting dated 30.9.2006 was barred in  

law would also get decided. In the process the CLB would also be in a position to  

decide as to whether minutes of AGM of the Company allegedly held on 30.9.2006  

are forged or not and on that basis application under Section 340 Cr. PC which is  

filed before the Company Law Boared would also be taken care of by the CLB  

itself.  Learned  Senior  Counsels  appearing  for  the  Bakshi  Group  immediately  

agreed with the aforesaid course of action suggested by Mr. Cama. We are happy  

that at least there is an agreement between both the parties on the procedural course  

of action, to give quietus to the matters before us as well. In view of the aforesaid  

consensus,  about  the  course  of  action  to  be  adopted  in  deciding  the  disputes  

between  the  parties,  we  direct  the  Company  Law  Board  to  decide  Company  

Petition No. 114 of 2007 filed before it by Ms. Sonia Khosla within a period of six  

months from the date of receiving a copy of this order. Since, it is the CLB which  

will  be  deciding the  application  under  Section  340 Cr.  PC filed  by Ms.  Sonia  

Khosla in the CLB, High Court need not proceed further with the Criminal Misc.  

(Co.). No. 3 of 2008. Likewise the question whether Mr. R.K. Garg was validly  

inducted as a Director or not would be gone into by the CLB, the proceedings in  

Co. Appeal No. (SB) 23 of 2009 filed by Mr. R.K. Garg in the High Court, also  

become otiose.  

17

Page 18

SLP(Crl.)No. 6873 of 2010

22. The only aspect on which some directions need to be given are, as to what  

should  be  the  interim  arrangement.  The  Bakshi  Group  wants  orders  dated  

31.1.2008 passed by CLB to continue the interregnum. The Khosla Group on the  

other hand refers to orders dated 11.4.2008 as it is their submission that this was a  

consent order passed by the High Court after the orders of the CLB and, therefore,  

this order should govern the field in the meantime..

23. After considering the matter, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to  

either enforce orders dated 31.1.2008 passed by the CLB or orders dated 11.4.2008  

passed by the High Court. Fact remains that there has been a complete deadlock, as  

far as affairs of the Company are concerned. The project has not taken off. It is  

almost dead at present. Unless the parties re-concile, there is no chance for a joint  

venture i.e. to develop the resort, as per the MOU dated 21.12.2005. It is only after  

the decision of CLB, whereby the respective rights of the parties are crystallised, it  

would be possible to know about the future of this project. Even the Company in  

question is also defunct at present as it has no other business activity or venture. In  

a situation like this, we are of the opinion that more appropriate orders would be to  

direct the parties to maintain status quo in the meantime, during the pendency of  

the aforesaid company petition before the CLB. However, we make it clear that if  

any exigency arises necessitating some interim orders,  it  would be open to the  

parties to approach the CLB for appropriate directions.  

18

Page 19

SLP(Crl.)No. 6873 of 2010

24. Both  these  petitions  are  disposed  of  in  the  aforesaid  terms.  All  other  

pending  I.As  including  criminal  contempt  petitions  and  petitions  filed  under  

Section 340 Cr. PC are also disposed of as in the facts of this case, we are not   

inclined to entertain such application. No costs.   

…......................................J. [Surinder Singh Nijjar]

…....................................J. [A.K. Sikri]

New Delhi May 08, 2014

19