SUNANINA SINGH & ANR. v. SITA CHAUDHARY (SINCE DECEASED THR LRS) & Ors.

#87. In view of the discussion above, my prima facie findings may be summarized as under. (i) Under the Will dated 26th March, 2004, the plaintiff had only a limited beneficial interest in the estate of late Sh. Devinder Chaudhary, which did not culminate into an absolute interest under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. (ii) There is a doubt whether the Will dated 26th March, 2004 is the last and final will of the late Sh. Devinder Singh Chaudhary, as the defendant no. 2 has propounded a Will dated 2008, in respect of which, probate proceedings are pending (iii) Therefore, the plaintiff could not have transferred the shareholding and interest in the estate of late Sh. Devinder Singh Chaudhary in favour of the defendants no. 4 and 9. (iv) The transfers of the defendant shares/interest companies/LLPs made in favour of the defendants no. 4 and 9 by the plaintiff were on account of undue influence exercised by the defendants no. 4 and 9 over the plaintiff Therefore, there a doubt is created in respect of the title of the defendants no. 4 and 9 over the shares/interest in the defendant companies/LLPs, transferred by the plaintiff. (v) The various defendant companies/LLPs are nothing but alter egos of the defendants no 4 and 9 and in the nature of quasi- partnerships. Therefore, following the ratio of Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad (supra). this Court is entitled to restrain the aforesaid immovable from disposing of companies/LLPs properties. (vi) Various loans have been taken and unauthorized transfers made from the defendant companies/LLPs and other family- owned companies/LLPs in favour of the defendants no. 4 and Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 96/2022 & other connected matters Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.03.2026 16:02:32

#9. These have been used to acquire properties/assets in their own names (vii) Various properties of late Sh. Devinder Singh Chaudhary/plaintiff and the defendant companies/LLPs have been disposed of or attempted to be disposed of by the defendants no 4 and 9 after acquiring control of these companies/LLPs. defendant companies/LLPs

#88. In view of the above, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in her favour for grant of interim injunction. Balance of convenience requires that the properties in the names of the defendant companies/LLPs are preserved and the defendants no 4 and 9 are restrained from disposing of the said properties held by shareholding/interest acquired by the defendants no. 4 and 9 in the aforesaid companies/LLPs till the final adjudication of the suit. Further, the defendants no. 4 and 9 should also be restrained from selling or disposing of immovable properties acquired by them till the final adjudication of the suit Irreparable harm and injury would be caused to the plaintiff as well as other legal heirs of the plaintiff and late Sh. Devinder Singh Chaudhary if the assets/properties belonging to the defendant companies/LLPs are frittered away by the defendants no. 4 and 9 during the pendency of the present suit Ultimately if the Court decrees the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the assets/properties of the defendant compames/LLPs have been alienated or sold, the decree would be rendered otiose.

#89. Consequently, an interim injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the following terms: (i) No third party interest, including sale, transfer and encumbrance, shall be created in respect of the properties owned by the defendants no. 13 to 17; (ii) The defendant no. 4 and 9 are restrained from transferring, selling, alienating and creating third party interest in the properties, being property/office in Building No.7, Basantlok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi; flat at Magnolia, Gurgaon; accommodation on the first and second floor of Tower B, Magnum Towers, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector 58, Gurgaon; factory land and building at Village Khanpur purkazi Laksar Road, Dist. Uttarakhand-247663. (iii) The aforesaid directions shall not come in the way of the defendant no.13 selling/transferring plots developed in Madhuban Colony situated in Rajpura, Punjab.

#90. Accordingly, the interim order dated 12th November, 2021 stands modified to the extent hereinabove. IA 14829/2021 succeeds and I.A. 15075/2021, Ι.Α. 15080/2021 and I.A. 15081/2021 are dismissed. Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 96/2022 & other connected matters Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.03.2026 16:02:32

#91. Needless to state, any observations made herein are only for the purposes of deciding the present applications and would have no bearing on the final adjudication of the suit.‖

#4. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed an I.A. 25626/2023 seeking an ad- interim injunction against Defendant No. 19 and the prospective Defendant M/s Kedar Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. from creating third- party rights in the properties covered under the two sale deeds dated

15.05.2019 and 25.11.2021. 5. By the Impugned Order dated 19.12.20234, which is the subject matter of FAO(OS) 33/2024 and FAO(OS) 49/2024, the learned Single Judge, by placing reliance on the earlier order dated

29.07.2022, granted injunction in the following terms: ―11. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the order dated 29.07.2022, I am of the view that the plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case in her favour. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff. Furthermore, grave and irreparable prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff in case, the defendants proceed to create any third party rights in the aforesaid two properties, which it is deemed, were owned by the plaintiff as late as on 25.05.2019. It is, accordingly, directed that till the next date all the parties will maintain status quo qua the two suit properties which are subject matter of the present applications.‖

#6. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the Impugned Orders directly and substantially affect Defendant No. 4 and her husband, Defendant No. 9. Consequently, all the present Appeals have been filed either by them or by others who appear to be supporting the cause of Defendant Nos. 4 and 9. 7. During the pendency of these Appeals, the original Plaintiff/ Respondent No. 1 passed away on 09.01.2025. Thereafter, six out of 4 Second Impugned Order Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 96/2022 & other connected matters Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.03.2026 16:02:32 her seven grandchildren, along with all three of her children, who were already parties to the Suit as well as the present Appeals, executed a memorandum of family arrangement dated 12.02.2025 and were substituted as her legal representatives by Order dated

22.08.2025. 8. The only remaining grandchild, Defendant No. 4, did not join the said family settlement and continues to contest the matter independently. Accordingly, for all practical purposes, the record now reflects two rival factions, namely, one representing the Plaintiff‘s side and the other led by Defendant No. 4. For the sake of clarity, convenience, and consistency, these contesting sides are hereinafter referred to as ―the Plaintiff‖ and ―Defendant No. 4‖, unless the context requires individual Defendants to be identified by their rank in the suit. 9. A tabular chart setting out the parties and their respective positions is reproduced below for ease of reference: Name of the Party Late. Smt. Sita Chaudhry (W/o Late Sh. Devinder Singh Chaudhry) Verinder Singh (S/o Late Sh. Devinder Singh Chaudhry) Deepinder Singh (S/o Late Sh. Devinder Singh Chaudhry) Bhupen Phougaat (S/o Late Sh. Devinder Singh Chaudhry) Sunaina Singh (D/o Deepinder Singh Chaudhry) Rank in CS(OS) Plaintiff Defendant No.1 Defendant No.2 Defendant No.3 Defendant No.4 Shruti Manav Sharma (D/o Deepinder Singh Chaudhry) Defendant No.5 Appellants before this Court - - - - Appellant No. 1 in FAO(OS)- 96/2022, along with Defendant No. 9 - Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 96/2022 & other connected matters Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.03.2026 16:02:32 Karandeep Singh (S/o Deepinder Singh Chaudhry) Brahm Dev Phougaat (S/o Bhupen Phougaat) Kritika Phougaat (D/o Bhupen Phougaat) Ajay Kadyan (Husband of Sunaina Singh/ Defendant No. 4) Manav Sharma (Husband of Shruti Manav Sharma/ Defendant No. 5) Arjun Singh (S/o Verinder Singh) Ankur Singh (S/o Verinder Singh) Industrial Cables (India) Ltd.5 Ruchi Towers LLP P.E. Manning (Consultants) Pvt. Ltd. Amba Promoters & Developers Pvt Ltd Rama Packing & Wires Industries LLP Beetal Financial and Computer Services Pvt. Ltd. DS Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. JMD Super Infratech Pvt. Ltd.6 M/S Kedaar Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. Defendant No.6 Defendant No.7 Defendant No.8 Defendant No.9 Defendant No.10 Defendant No.11 Defendant No.12 Defendant No.13 Defendant No.14 Defendant No.15 Defendant No.16 Defendant No.17 Defendant No.18 Defendant No.19 - - - Appellant No. 2 in FAO(OS)- - - - Appellant in FAO (OS) NO. - - - - Appellant in FAO(OS)- 98/2022 and FAO(OS)- Appellant in appeal FAO(OS)- Appellant in FAO(OS)- 5 ICL 6 JMD Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 96/2022 & other connected matters Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.03.2026 16:02:32 BRIEF FACTS: 10. The facts germane to the institution of the present Appeals are as follows: (a) Late Smt. Sita Chaudhry was married to Late Sh. Devinder Singh Chaudhry7. Out of the said wedlock, they had 3 sons who have been named in the table in the preceding paragraph. (b) The Plaintiff and the deceased had set up various companies/LLPs, which also included Defendant Nos. 13 to 17 and the Plaintiff and the deceased were the Directors/ Partners in the said companies/ LLPs and held majority shareholding as well, either directly or indirectly. (c) The deceased left for his heavenly abode on 05.12.2009, leaving behind the Plaintiff and his other legal heirs. At the time of the passing of the deceased, the major shareholding of the companies/ LLPs was in the name of the Plaintiff and the deceased. The shareholding at the time of the passing of the deceased is as follows: S. No 1. NAME OF ENTITY SHAREHOLDING ICL (Defendant no.13) a. Devinder Singh Chaudhary b. Sita Chaudhary 21,50,410 25.7% 7,51,000

9.0% c. Ruchi Tower 41,53,150 49.6% d. Darshan 6,49,000

7.8% Properties Pvt. Ltd. e. Others Total

7.9% 6,61,900 83,65,460 100% 7 Deceased Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 96/2022 & other connected matters Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.03.2026 16:02:32

#2. Ruchi Towers Pvt. Ltd. (now Ruchi Towers LLP) (Defendant no.14) a. Devinder Singh Chaudhry 88,119

40.6% b. Sita 46,463

21.4% Chaudhary c. BBI Pvt Trust 82,424

38.0% Total 2,17,006 100%

#3. P.E. Manning (Consultants) Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant no.15) a. Devinder Singh Chaudhry 15,000

50.0% b. Sita 3,012

10.0% Chaudhary c. Satluj Pvt Trust 12,000

40.0% Total 30,012 100% a. Devinder Singh Chaudhry b. Sita Chaudhary c. Satluj Pvt. Trust Total a. Devinder Singh Chaudhry b. Sita c. Chaudhary ICL Sales & Services Pvt Ltd 5,000

50.0% 1,000

10.0% 4,000

40.0% 10,000 470 100% 5.5% 443

5.2% 3,800

44.6% d. Deepak Oils 3,800

44.6% Pvt Ltd Total a. Devinder Singh Chaudhry b. Sita 8,513 2,000 100% 20.0% 2,000

20.0%

#4. Amba Promoters & Pvt. Ltd. Developers (Defendant no.16)

#5. Rama Packing & Wires Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Now Rama Packing & Wires LLP) Industries (Defendant no.17)

#6. Deepak Oils Pvt Ltd (now amalgamated Defendant no.17) Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 96/2022 & other connected matters Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.03.2026 16:02:32

#7. ICL Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd. (now amalgamated with Defendant no.17) Chaudhary c. RPW Pvt Trust Total a. Devinder Singh Chaudhry b. Sita Chaudhary c. RPW Pvt Trust Total 6,000

20.0% 10,00 10,000 60% 20.0% 10,000

20.0% 30,000

60.0% 50,000 100% (d) It is stated that the deceased executed a Will dated 26.03.2004, under which the Plaintiff was appointed as the executor and also had a limited interest. (e) Subsequently, another Will dated 04.10.2008 is alleged to exist, and Defendant No. 2 instituted probate/letters of administration proceedings with respect to the said Will before the learned Saket District Courts, District-South, Delhi. The Plaintiff filed objections in those proceedings. (f) After the demise of her husband, the Plaintiff, aged about 73 years and in deteriorating health, was residing alone. During this period, Defendant No. 4, along with her husband, Defendant No. 9, shifted to Chandigarh, where the Plaintiff was then residing, allegedly to take care of her ailing grandmother. (g) It is alleged that between 2018-2019, the Plaintiff executed various instruments/gift transferring substantial shareholding and interests, both of the deceased and herself, to Defendant Nos. 4 and 9. The transfers were as follows: Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 96/2022 & other connected matters Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.03.2026 16:02:32 DATE CORPORATE ENTITY TRANSFE ROR TRANSF EREE NUMBER OF SHARES 6,000 Sita Chaudhry Sunaina Singh

19.12.2018 Amba Promoters & Developers Pvt Ltd (Defendant no. 16) P.E. Manning (Consultants) Pvt. Ltd (Defendant no. 15)

19.12.2018

14.03.2019 Ruchi Towers LLP (Defendant no. 14)

14.03.2019 Rama Packing & Wires Industries LLP (Defendant no. 17)

24.04.2019 Ruchi Towers LLP (Defendant no. 14)

06.06.2019 ICL (Defendant no. 13) Sita Chaudhry Sunaina Singh 18,012 Sita Chaudhry Sunaina Singh 62% LLP Capital Sita Chaudhry Sunaina Singh 47% LLP Capital Rajpura Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Sita Chaudhry Ajay Kadyan 38% LLP Capital Sunaina Singh 21,21,240 (h) Upon acquiring the above shareholding and interest, Defendant Nos. 4 and 9 allegedly sold a number of properties belonging to the said companies/LLPs at values significantly below the prevailing market price. It is further alleged that they also acquired assets in their own names by utilising loans and advances drawn from the defendant companies/LLPs under their control, particularly after assuming management of Defendant No. 13. (i) The resultant shareholding/ ownership and directorship/ partnership structure of the key companies/ LLPs is summarised below: Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 96/2022 & other connected matters Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.03.2026 16:02:32 S.NO.

#1. NAME OF BODY CORPORATE Industrial Cables Ltd. SHAREHOLDING/ PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL a. Sunaina Singh 33.6% b. Sita Chaudhry 0.01% c. Devinder Singh Chaudhry 8.6% d. Ruchi Towers LLP 44.1% e. Darshan Properties LLP 6.9% f. Others 6.8% 100% a. Sunaina Singh 62.0% b. Ajay Kadyan 38.0% 100% a. Sunaina Singh 60.0% b. Rama Packing & Wire Industries LLP 40.0% 100% a. Sunaina Singh 60.0% b. Rama Packing & Wire Industries LLP 40.0%

#2. Ruchi Towers LLP

#3. P.E. Manning (Consultants) Pvt. Ltd.

#4. Amba Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. DIRECTORSHIP/ PARTNERSHIP

#1. Sita Chaudhry (Managing Director)

#2. Sunaina Singh (Wholetime Director)

#3. Rajeev Pandey (Director)

#4. Puja Shukla (Company Secretary)

#1. Sunaina Singh

#2. Ajay Kadyan (Designated Partners)

#1. Sita Chaudhry

#2. Sunaina Singh

#3. Ajay Kadyan (Directors)

#1. Sita Chaudhry

#2. Anil Kumar Rampal (Directors) Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 96/2022 & other connected matters Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.03.2026 16:02:32

#5. Rama Packing Wires Industries LLP (Defendant No. 17) 100% a. Sunaina Singh 47.5% b. Ruchi Towers LLP 52.5% 100%

#1. Sunaina Singh (Designated Partner)

#2. Rajeev Pandey (Body Corporate Designated Partner Nominee) (j) In the second half of 2020, Defendant No. 1 instituted CS(OS) 382/2020 before this Court seeking, inter alia, declaration, partition, permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, recovery and mesne profits concerning the estate of the deceased. (k) In June 2021, the Plaintiff shifted from Chandigarh to Delhi to reside with her other legal heirs, and it is stated that she then realised the nature and consequences of the various alleged documents executed by her while under the care of Defendants No. 4 and 9. (l) The Plaintiff thereafter filed an application seeking withdrawal of or to disregard the pleadings filed in CS(OS) 382/2020 on her behalf, asserting that those pleadings had not been instituted by her volition but were filed by Defendant No. 4 purportedly in her name. (m) On 21.10.2021, the Plaintiff filed CS(OS) 589/2021 before this Court seeking declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction, rendition of accounts, and cancellation of gift deeds relating to the properties of the deceased and herself. By Order dated

12.11.2021, the learned Single Judge directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the disposal of the suit Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 96/2022 & other connected matters Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.03.2026 16:02:32 properties. (n) Along with the plaint, the Plaintiff had also filed an interim application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking the following reliefs: ―a) Pass an order restraining Def. No.4 and No.9 from exercising any right and authority of any kinds whatsoever based on the share transactions including right issues in the suit in ICL (Def. No.13), Amba Promoters & Developers Pvt Ltd (Def. No.16), P.E. Manning (Consultants) Pvt. Ltd (Def. No.15) as mentioned in suit and transfer of shares in Ruchi Towers LIP (Def. No.14 and Rama Packaging & Wire Industries LLP (Def. No.17) in any manner whatsoever. b) Pass an order restraining Def. No.4 and Def. No.9 from transferring, selling, alienating and creating third party interest in the property of ICL (Def. No.13), Amba Promoters & Developers Put Ltd (Def. No.16), P.E. Manning (Consultants) Pvt Ltd (Def. No. 15), Ruchi Towers LLP (Def. No.14) and Rama packaging & Wires Industries LLP (Def. No.17). c) Pass an order restraining Def. No.4 and Def. No.9 from selling any property located at Build. No.7, Basantlok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, flat at Mangolia, Gurgaon, accommodation on first and second floor of Tower B, Magnum Towers, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector 58, Gurgaon, factory land and building at Village-Khanpur purkazi Laksar Road, Dist. Uttarakhand- 247663 till the share transactions of various companies and LLP as mentioned in the suit and the assets of the deceased and the plaintiff are restored back to the status before the transfer / sale at the time of death of deceased / before transfer. d) Pass an order restraining the Defendant No.4 and 9 from disturbing the peaceful possession of the accommodation of the property located at first Floor, H.No. 36, Sector 5A, Chandigarh which was given to the plaintiff by a board resolution of ICL. e) Pass an interim order restraining Defendant No.4 and 9 from leaving the country without permission of this Hon'ble Court. f) ex-parte order in terms of prayer above. g) Pass such further order as this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.‖ (o) After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge passed the First Impugned Order dated 29.07.2022. (p) Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed I.A. 25626/2023 seeking interim Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 96/2022 & other connected matters Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.03.2026 16:02:32 protection regarding properties covered under two sale deeds dated 15.05.2019 and 25.11.2021. On 19.12.2023, while considering the said application, the learned Single Judge passed the Second Impugned Order. (q) Aggrieved by the above two Impugned Orders, the present Appeals have been preferred. SUBMISSIONS OF DEFENDANT NO. 4/ APPELLANTS: 11. At the outset, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge, while passing the Impugned Orders, has, on his own accord, conducted what virtually amounts to a mini-trial, and such an exercise is contrary to the settled principles of law governing the grant of interim injunctions. 12. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has erroneously restrained the Defendant Companies/LLPs from carrying on business dealings on the premise of an alleged fraudulent transfer of shares and entitlements in favour of Defendant Nos. 4 and 9, and such restraint has resulted in serious prejudice and undue losses to the said Companies/LLPs. 13. It is submitted that the Plaintiff‘s pleadings fail to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC as no particulars of fraud or undue influence have been pleaded or substantiated, yet the learned Single Judge has returned a prima facie finding of undue influence without either pleadings or evidence to that effect, and despite the Plaintiff not having claimed anywhere in the Plaint that she was under undue influence; nevertheless, the First Impugned Order wrongly proceeds on this assumption and even Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 96/2022 & other connected matters Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.03.2026 16:02:32 observes that such alleged undue influence continued until June 2021. 14. It is also submitted that the Plaintiff did not lodge any complaint with any authority alleging fraud or illegality nor issue any legal notice prior to filing the suit, and the present suit has been instituted only on 21.10.2021, after an unexplained delay of nearly 33 months from the alleged incident dated 19.12.2018. 15. is contended It the documents on record clearly demonstrate that the Plaintiff was in sound physical and mental health and was actively involved in the day-to-day affairs of the Companies, and it was of her own free will that she executed the gift deeds, signed the share-transfer forms, handed over the share certificates to Defendant Nos. 4 and 9, and completed all legal formalities necessary for effectuating the transfer of shares. 16. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff gifted shares to her other grandchildren during the same period in 2018 when the gifts were made to Defendant Nos. 4 and 9, and she subsequently executed an ―Additional Settlement‖ dated 28.05.2019 specifying that Defendant No. 4 was to receive 20% of the sale consideration from the other grandchildren upon sale of the assets of Glorious Commercial LLP and Satluj Trading LLP. 17. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has wrongly relied on Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 19568, because the Plaintiff herself claims to be the absolute and sole owner of the properties under the Will dated 26.03.2004 executed by her late husband, and once absolute ownership is asserted, reliance on Section 14 becomes misconceived. 8 HSA Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 96/2022 & other connected matters Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.03.2026 16:02:32

#18. It is also contended that under Section 89 of the Companies Act, 20139, if the Plaintiff were merely a holder of beneficial interest in the shares devolving from the deceased, she ought to have informed the Defendant Companies/LLPs accordingly, whereas she repeatedly represented herself to be the absolute owner based on her understanding of the Will dated 26.03.2004, and thus she cannot now resile and claim only a life interest. 19. It is further contended that the Plaintiff has not sought the appropriate relief before the learned Single Judge because, when an executant seeks to avoid a transaction, the proper relief is cancellation and not merely declaration, and by relying on Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors.10, it is further submitted that such a suit is not maintainable without seeking cancellation and without paying ad valorem court fees, which the Plaintiff has not done. 20. It is also submitted that JMD (Appellant in FAO(OS) 97/2022) is a separate and independent juristic entity which has successfully completed more than 100 real-estate projects, and neither in the past nor at present have JMD and Defendant No. 13 shared shareholders, directors, or key managerial personnel, yet the Impugned Order has been passed in complete disregard of these material facts. 21. Lastly, it is submitted that FAO(OS) No. 33/2024 and FAO(OS) No. 49/2024 are directed against the Second Interim Order, which is entirely dependent upon and derivative of the First Impugned Order, and in doing so, it has further extended the restraint even to properties 9 Companies Act 10 (2010) 12 SCC 112. Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 96/2022 & other connected matters Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.03.2026 16:02:32 that were not part of the Plaint. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS: 22. Per Contra, the Plaintiff would rebut each and every contention PLAINTIFF/ CONTESTING THE raised in support of these Appeals. 23. On behalf of the Plaintiff, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the Impugned Orders to preserve the estate of the deceased as well as that of the Plaintiff. 24. It is submitted that Defendant No. 13 has wrongly prayed for setting aside the Impugned Order restraining the business activities of the Company. It is further submitted that Defendant No. 13 is not in the real estate business in the true commercial sense and has only ever engaged in one real estate project by selling the industrial land of the Company, and such a singular transaction cannot be relied upon to term the Company as one engaged in the real estate business. Even otherwise, the Company has never purchased any land for the purposes of development or sale, and land now being developed/sold is merely the land on which the earlier factory and housing for employees were situated, along with certain agricultural land. 25. In support of the findings of the learned Single Judge, it is submitted that pursuant to the transfers undertaken by Defendant Nos. 4 and 9, the majority of the shares in Defendant No. 13 are now held by Defendant No. 4, and therefore the majority decisions in the said Company are also being taken solely by Defendant No. 4; similarly, this is the position with respect to Defendant Nos. 14 to 17, and Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 96/2022 & other connected matters Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.03.2026 16:02:32 therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly injuncted these Defendants from carrying out any further transactions. 26. With respect to the collaboration agreements between JMD (Appellant in FAO(OS) 97/2022) and Defendant No. 13, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the transaction and injuncted the same, since firstly, the property is being sold for an amount lower than its actual value because the promoters of JMD are known to Defendant Nos. 4 and 9, and secondly, the factum of sale was not disclosed by Defendant No. 13 before the learned Single Judge although the transaction was executed between the service of the suit and its first listing. 27. It is also submitted that keeping in view all these facts, circumstances and actions of Defendant Nos. 4 and 9, the learned Single Judge has rightly injuncted Defendant Nos. 4 and 9 as well as Defendant Nos. 13 to 17 from dealing with or transacting in the estate of the deceased and the Plaintiff, and if the said Injunction is not upheld, the estate would be frittered away and nothing material would remain. 28. With respect to the applicability of Section 89 of the Companies Act, it is submitted that the said plea is misconceived and has no application to the present case. During the Plaintiff‘s lifetime, the Plaintiff held the shares entirely and absolutely, albeit only to the extent of enjoying the income arising from the estate and with the caveat that she could not sell or alienate the shares; during her lifetime, none of the other legal heirs have any rights in the shares, and only after the Plaintiff‘s demise would their rights be worked out in accordance with the 2004 Will. Therefore, during the Plaintiff‘s Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 96/2022 & other connected matters Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:20.03.2026 16:02:32 lifetime, there is neither any other beneficial interest holder in the shares nor any requirement to declare any such person, and accordingly the Plaintiff was not required to make a declaration under Section 89(1) of the Companies Act, nor were the legal heirs required to make a declaration under Section 89(8) of the Companies Act. 29. It is contended that the argument advanced by Defendant No. 4 that the prayer sought by the Plaintiff before the learned Single Judge was erroneous, holds no substance. It is submitted that the transfers made by the Plaintiff in favour of Defendant Nos. 4 and 9 are void ab initio since they were procured under coercion/undue influence and fraudulently; and in light of the manner in which the transfers were made, the prayer for declaration has been rightly sought. Reliance would be placed on the judgments of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Kewal Krishan vs. Rajesh Kumar11, Prem Singh vs. Birbal12 and Shanti Devi vs. Jagan Devi13, wherein it has been held that a declaration in respect of a void document need not even be specifically prayed and can be considered in collateral proceedings. 30. It is also submitted that in respect of the transfer of shares in Defendant No. 13, the relevant form has been forged by Defendant Nos. 4 and 9, and therefore, no cancellation of a document that was never executed by the Plaintiff is required to be sought. ANALYSIS: 31. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and, with their able assistance, perused the Impugned Orders, the