[Invesco v. Zee] Zee objects to “final relief” being sought in NCLT at interim stage

The hearing in the application moved before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, by Invesco Developing Markets Fund over its requisiton for an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) to Zee Entertainment on Tuesday witnessed heated arguments over whether the applicants can or have been seeking "final relief" at an interim stage..A Bench headed by Acting President Bhaskara Pantula Mohan and Technical Member, Narendra Kumar Bhola eventually granted two days time for Zee to file their reply, while declining to accede to repeated requests for further time. .The Bench opined that the respondents are completely aware of the case and its facts and circumstances and further that what is to be filed, if necessary, is a “simple counter in furtherance of their arguments.”.The NCLT noted further that strenuous and emphatic arguments have been made by the respondents that no orders can be passed without giving them an opportunity to file a counter. However, the Bench refused to give time beyond two days for this purpose. ."... in order to meet the ends of justice, we, the Tribunal direct the respondents to file a reply by 7th by duly serving a copy on petitioners. No further time shall be granted to either party", the NCLT said, in its order. .This is not a usual case where weeks and weeks of time can be granted and matter be heard for days together to finally write an order running into hunderds of page, the NCLT added. The point involved is short and simple, the NCLT said, adding in its order that the Bench is conscious that the senior counsel on both sides are aware of the same..Only in obeisance to the seniority, knowledge and stature of the senior counsel, the Bench was inclined to grant reasonable time to reply, the order added, while adjourning the matter till October 7. .Arguments made on Tuesday.Appearing for Zee, Senior Advocate Navroz H Seervai asserted that the counsel for Invesco have metamorphised an interim relief hearing into a final hearing by their arguments. He added that if the case is being heard finally, Zee should be given a reasonable time to file a reply. ."The ad interim relief sought is the very final relief that they seek, which you can give, if at all, only after hearing the matter. The Supreme Court has severely deprecated it - granting final relief at the ad interim stage … They seek an alteration of status quo and Supreme Court has said except in extraordinary or rare cases, the court or tribunal will not give a mandatory interim injunction altering status quo. That is for the final hearing. By Supreme Court case law, the ad interim or interim application has to be dismissed irrespective of jurisdictional or maintainability issues or merits", Seervai argued. .His arguments were supported by Senior counsel Sudipto Sarkar and Arun Kathpalia. .On the other hand, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Invesco, argued that Zee's contentions on this count were absurd, unfair and made to delay the proceedings. He recounted that no time had been sought earlier to reply, including when Senior Advocate Gopal Subramaniam had appeared for Zee on September 30.."There is no question of any ad interim or final (relief). This is only on whether a meeting should be held or not. Either it is to be held or not .. If any one wanted to do anything, they had a full weekend. They chose to pass order of rejection (of the requisition) and to defend it. … It’s an absurdity to say it should be an ad-interim relief (that is sought at an interim stage) - it does not arise in situation of this nature. There is no ad-interim or final … It is a complete bogey that they want to file a reply and this and that", Rohatgi said..Seervai countered that even in the application moved by Invesco, a prayer was added for ad interim relief. He questioned whether such a prayer was only inserted so that the Tribunal would prioritize the matter out of turn.."If it is only final relief - then I ask myself why did the draftsmen of the 14 page application … add a prayer for ad interim relief? Is it meaningless? Is it to mislead? He should have only asked for final relief. You use ad interim relief to put your foot in the matter. Is this the way a litigant approaches a Tribunal? You solemnly pray for ad interim relief. And Mr Rohatgi says with a straight face, that there is a case only with one kind of relief!", Seervai argued. .Seervai added that the matter is not as simple as it has been made out by the applicants."It is unfortunate that Bench has mentioned twice that it is a simple matter ... It is not a matter of levity", he said. .Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Janak Dwarakdas, for the applicant-side, highlighted that Zee has filed a suit running into about 420 pages before the Bombay High Court, which points to efforts being made by Zee to forum shop. .In this regard, he emphasised that the voluminous suit had been filed on October 1, i.e. on the same day that Zee's Board of Directors circulated its rejection of Invesco's requisition. ."If it (has been drafted) is after (the Board's decision), then whoever is the draftsmen has to be given the maximum credit for speed drafting - a 420-page plaint typed, finalised, copied and lodged on the same day! ... What is worse, this plaint is meant to take away your Lordships’ power to take a decision ... Is this not forum shopping, is this not a kind of insurance that if the tribunal orders a meeting, they will quickly run to the High Court and get an injunction. What kind of behaviour is this? ... I fail to understand how the respondents would have behaved in this manner and is it not a classic case of forum shopping", Dwarakdas told the NCLT Bench. .On September 11, 2021, Invesco had put a requisition to the Zee Board of Directors to hold an EGM on the ground that it felt that the company was not running as smoothly as desired. It was suggested that certain new directors come on the board in order to safeguard its interests.