1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 7-9-2016, passed by the IV Additional City Civil And Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-21), whereby the learned Civil has granted a temporary injunction in favour of Respondent No.1, (henceforth to be referred to as “the Plaintiff”, for short), and has debarred the appellants from interfering with the administration and management of the Alliance University, (“the University”, for short), and the Alliance Business School (“the Sponsoring Body”, for short), and from entering upon the three campus owned and operated by the University.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Mr. Madhusudhan Mishra, the plaintiff, claims to be Deputy Registrar and In-charge Registrar of the University. He further claims that he has been authorized to file the suit. According to him, Mr. Madhukar Angur, (the ousted Chancellor), the appellant No.1, is needlessly interfering both with the University and with the Sponsoring Body. By such interference, Mr. Madhukar Angur is endangering the safety, the reputation, the welfare and the good will of the University.

3. Further according to the plaintiff, the Alliance Business School Pvt. Ltd was formed in Bangalore, on June 28, 2005, by Mrs. Shaila G. Chebbi and Mrs. Mala Gouda both sisters of Mr. Madhukar Angur. In the year 2010, the Company secured Section 25 Status under the Companies Act. Moreover, considering the success of the Company, in 2010, the State Government enacted the Alliance University Act, 2010 (“the Act”, for short). Thus, the University was established under the said Act.

4. According to the plaintiff, while Mr. Madhukar Angur was working at the University of Michigan, in USA, on 24/27-11-2008, he was inducted as a Director of the Company. Subsequently, he became the Managing Director of the Company. Since he was the Managing Director of the Company in 2010, he became the Chancellor of the University in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, according to the plaintiff, Mr. Madhukar Angur played financial and administrative havoc both with the University and the Sponsoring Body. The plaintiff further claimed that in April 2010, Mr. Madhukar Angur had transferred 38% of his share to his sister, Mrs. Mala Gouda, and 5% to his brother-in-law, Mr. Srinivas Gowda. However, in March 2014 it was discovered that these shares were fraudulently transferred to Mrs. Priyanka, Mr. Madhukar Angur’s wife. Confronted with this fraud played by Mr. Madhukar Angur, according to the plaintiff, Mr. Madhukar Angur promised to re-transfer the shares to the original shareholders, and to resign from the company. Therefore, on 5-3-2015, while he transferred his shares to Mr. Abhay Chebbi, Mrs. Mala Gouda, Mrs. Priyanaka transferred her shares to Mr. Prakash Siddapa, and Mr. Shivappa Mantur. Both of them also resigned from the Company.

5. However, subsequently, the appellants changed their minds, and claimed that they did not transfer the said shares to any person. The appellants filed criminal cases against Mr. Sudhir Angur and other family members. The plaintiff further claimed that on 10-4-2015, the appellants were warned to mend their ways, or to face consequences. On 10-4-2015, the Board of Directors accepted the appellant’s resignation. And on 13-4-2015, the latest position with regard to the Board of Director’s was uploaded to the portal of the Registrar of Companies (“the ROC”, for short). However, the appellants filed criminal cases against Mr. Sudhir Angur, and other for illegally using the digital signature of the appellants.

6. Moreover, according to the plaintiff, during this tussle between Mr. Madhukar Angur and his party on the one hand, and Mr. Sudhir Angur and his party, on the other hand, Mr. Madhukar Angur was removed from the post of Chancellor by the Sponsoring Body. In turn, on 15-4-2016, Mr. Sudhir Angur, has been appointed as the Chancellor of the University. But notwithstanding the appointment of Mr. Sudhir Angur as the Cha