C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The order, dated 11th September 2017, under challenge in the present appeal, has been passed by the learned Single Judge in IA 9618/2017, preferred by Respondent No. 1 – Chhaya Devi – under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the CPC”), in CS (OS) 285/2017.

2. The affairs forming subject matter of the present proceedings concern M/s Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “PZFIPL”), which is engaged in the manufacture of chewing tobacco and associated products. M/s Prabhat Zarda Factory was conceived as a sole proprietorship of Lalit Kumar Arya in 1962, and, subsequently, metamorphosed into a partnership in 1965 and into the present private limited Company in June 1985 – originally named M/s Prabhat Zarda Factory (Muzpur) Pvt. Ltd. and later rechristened as PZFIPL on 27th March 1991.

The Dramatis Personae

3. First, to introduce the dramatis personae, eschewing honorifics for ease of reference.

4. Lalit Kumar Arya and Rukmini Devi were husband and wife. They had three sons – Jyoti Kumar Arya (hereinafter referred to as “Jyoti”), Pradeep Kumar Arya (hereinafter referred to as “Pradeep”) and Vijay Kumar Arya (hereinafter referred to as “Vijay”).

5. Jyoti was married to Malti Devi. The couple had three sons, namely Jai Kumar Arya (hereinafter referred to as “Jai”), Ujjwal Kumar Arya (hereinafter referred to as “Ujjwal”) and Gaurav Kumar Arya (hereinafter referred to as “Gaurav”).

6. Pradeep was married to Manju Devi, and had only one son, Purushottam Kumar Arya (hereinafter referred to as “Purushottam”).

7. Vijay married Chhaya Devi. Their children, if any, have no part to play herein.

8. The relative positions of the above listed members of the PZF family tree, in CS (OS) 285/2017, and in the present appeal, with their respective shareholdings in PZFIPL, may be tabulated thus:      

9 The above position may, alternatively, be represented as under:      

10. This position may also be represented, in the form of a family tree, thus:      

The Proceedings, and associated facts

11. The internecine disputes and conflicts between the plaintiffs and defendants do not concern the present appeal, and are in seisin before the learned Single Judge, before whom various suits are pending. Our brief is limited to deciding whether the learned Single Judge could, in law, have, vide the impugned order dated 11th September 2017, passed in IA 9618/2017, restrained the defendants from acting upon notice, dated 8th August 2017, and the resolutions passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors (hereinafter referred to as “BOD”) on 26th August 2017. The circumstances in which the said dispute arises would become clearer from the recital that follows. For ease of reference, the various parties would