1. The appellant, the Alliance University, is aggrieved by the order dated 10-8-2016, passed by the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore city (CCH-9), whereby the learned Judge has rejected the temporary injunction application filed by the appellant, but has allowed the temporary injunction application filed by the respondent- defendants in their counter-claim. The appellant has filed two Miscellaneous First Appeals, namely M.F.A. No. 6011/2016, and M.F.A. No. 6012/201. In the former MFA, the appellant has challenged the rejection of its application for temporary injunction; in the latter MFA, the appellant has challenged the grant of temporary injunction to the respondents. Since these two MFA's arise out of the same factual matrix, since the legal issues overlap, since the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel are interconnected, the two MFA's are being decided by this common order.

2. The appellant is also aggrieved by another part of the impugned order, namely the rejection of its application under Order I, Rule 10, read with Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC, for amending the plaint. The appellant has challenged this part of the impugned order by filing a Writ Petition, namely W.P.No. 48506/2016. Since the writ petition deals with a separate application, since it involves a different set of contentions, it is being decided by a separate order. This order is concerned only with the two aforementioned MFA's filed by the appellant University.

3. This case has a long and a chequered history which, out of sheer necessity, needs to be narrated. For, the events are relevant in order to understand the myriad contentions and counter-contentions subsequently raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the parties.

4. Mr. Madhukar Angur, the alleged Chancellor of the appellant University, and Mr. Sudhir Angur, the respondent No. 1, are real brothers. Mrs. Shaila Chebbi, respondent No. 2, and Mrs. Mala Gouda, respondent No. 3, are their real sisters. Mr. Abhay Chebbi, respondent No. 4, is a son of Mrs. Shaila Chebbi, and thus, the nephew of Mr. Madhukar Angur. Mr. Prakash Siddappa, respondent No. 5, on the other hand, is an ex-employee of the appellant University. The bone of contention in the present case is the management of the Alliance University. The contest is between Mr. Madhukar Angur, who claims to be the Chancellor of the University, appointed for life, and Mr. Sudhir Angur who equally claims to be the lawfully appointed Chancellor of the University. The other respondents, named above, claim to be the directors of the Alliance Business School Pvt. Ltd, the Sponsoring Body of the appellant University. They are supporting the case of Mr. Sudhir Angur.

5. Way back in 1997, Mr. Sudhir Angur had established the Sainath Education Trust. Mr. Sudhir Angur was the Managing Trustee. The Managing Trustees operated the Alliance Business Academy. On 16-6-2005, the Alliance Business School, ('the Company', for short), a private limited company, was registered under the Company Act, 1956. The founding shareholders of the said Company where the two sisters of Mr. Sudhir Angur, namely Mrs. Mala Gouda, who held 5000 shares, and Mrs. Shaila Chebbi, who also held another 5000 shares. Thus, the Company began with 10,000 shares.

6. Around 2007, Mr. Madhukar Angur was teaching at the University of Michigan in the United States of America. On 25-4-2007, he was inducted as a Director of the Company. On 27-11-2008, he was appointed as the Managing Director of the Company. Thus, on 20-5-2009, the Board of Directors consisted of Mr. Madhukar Angur, as the MD, Mrs. Mala Gauda and Mrs. Shaila Chebbi as the Directors. During the period of 2005 to 2009, the shares of the Company increased exponentially. On 20-5-2009, the Board allotted 2,40,000 shares in favour of Mr. Madhukar Angur. Subsequently, on 16-10-2009, Mrs Mala Gouda transferred 2500 shares of hers to Mr. Madhukar Angur. On the same day, she also transferred her remaining 2500 sh