1. The captioned appeals and one set of Cross Objections, have been placed before me, for adjudication.

1.1. The appeals filed being, Company Appeal Nos. 3 and 4 of 2016, assail the judgment and order of the Company Law Board (in short CLB), dated 10.03.2016.

1.2. The Cross Objections bearing No.39 of 2016 have been preferred by respondents 1 to 6 to assail some of the findings recorded in the impugned judgment and order of the CLB, in particular, the finding that respondent No.7, i.e., S.V.Global Mill Limited (in short "SVG") is not a quasi-partnership.

1.3. There are other objections also raised by respondents 1 to 6, to which, I will be making a reference, as I go along with the narration of facts and events.

2. Before I proceed further, let me indicate as to who are the main protagonists in the battle, which has ensued, with regard to the affairs of SVG.

2.1. The appellants, in Company Appeal No.3 of 2016 are, one, Mr.M.Ethiraj (Ethiraj) and his son Mr.E.Shanmugam (Shanmugam). For the sake of convenience, they would be referred to, collectively, as the "controlling group" and, individually, by their respective names, unless the context requires otherwise. For example, when, the context requires, the appellants in both Company Appeals would be collectively referred to as "appellants".

2.2. The controlling group holds 55% of the paid up equity share capital in SVG. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are companies, which are controlled and managed by, one, Mr.S.Natarajan, who, stands impleaded as respondent No.11 in Company Appeal No.3 of 2016 and, as respondent No.12 in Company Appeal No.4 of 2016. Respondent No.6 is, one, Ms.N.Rajalakshmi, who is the wife of Mr.S.Natarajan. For the sake of convenience, respondent Nos.11 and 12 would be referred to as "Natarajan".

2.3. Natarajan, via his wife, respondent No.6/Ms.N.Rajalakshmi and respondent Nos.1 to 5 holds 18.98% of the equity share capital of SVG. Therefore, as would be evident, there are two major blocks, in which, shares of SVG are divided. The first block comprises of the controlling group, which holds 55% of the share. The second block comprises of respondent Nos.1 to 6, which includes Natarajan's wife and the five companies, in which, he has controlling interest, i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 5. This block, as indicated above, holds 18.98% of the equity share capital of SVG. Since, Natarajan is the face of this block, it will be referred to as the "Natarajan block", accordingly, unless context requires specific mention of respondent Nos.1 to 6.

2.4. These two (2) groups together control nearly 74% of equity share capital of SVG. The remaining 26% of the equity stake is distributed amongst public shareholders. The record shows that the numerical strength of the public shareholders is 9014.

2.5. Therefore, the dispute in the present proceedings is really between the controlling group and the Natarajan block. The controlling group is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the CLB, broadly, on the ground that even though the CLB returned findings of fact that there was no quasi-partnership in existence, and that, there was no deadlock in running and managing the affairs of SVG, it, passed directions to the effect that 18.98% of shares owned by the Natarajan block should be purchased either by the controlling group or, by SVG itself.

2.6. Moreover, for effectuating this direction, a further direction has been issued by the CLB, which is, that the fair price of the shares held by Natarajan block should be determined by arriving at a valuation as per the balance sheet of SVG, obtaining as on 31.03.2015.

2.7. For this purpose, CLB directed appointment of an independent valuer, in the manner, indicated in the impugned judgment. In addition thereto, there were two supplemental directions issued: First, that SVG would not extend loans or, make investments, in associate or related c