JUDGMENT :

A.I.S. Cheema, J.

This appeal has been filed by original-Respondents 1 to 4. The Respondents 1 to 4 in this Appeal are the original-Petitioners while the Respondent No.5 in Appeal is original Respondent No.5. The Company Petition pending before the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (‘NCLT’, in short) is CP 38/2006 (TP 7/HDB/2016).

2. The present Appeal arises out of Interim Order dated 22nd February, 2018. The present Appellants – Original Respondents 1 to 4 have filed this Appeal taking exception to the Impugned Order on the ground that the Interim Order without the Company Petition being tried and without the NCLT holding oppression and mismanagement, it has passed Order which is in the nature of final Order. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the Appellants that if the Order is perused, it shows as if before the NCLT, the only issue which was required to be decided was apportionment of the property. According to the learned counsel, such Order could not have been passed without first adjudicating the Company Petition. The learned counsel placed reliance on the case of “Rachakonda Siva Kumar vs. Zetatek Engineering Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.” – Company Appeal (AT) 141/2017 which Judgment has been passed by the Bench of this National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on 19.05.2017, to argue that in that matter also when without going into the merits of case, Chairperson was appointed to hold meetings and Auditor was also appointed, the Order was set aside.

3. The learned counsel referred to the pleadings in the Company Petition and referring to the pleadings, the counsel submitted that there were various allegations made against the present Appellants – original Respondents making averments of oppression and mismanagement and without settling the same, the Order which has been passed could not have been passed.

4. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the present Interim Order cannot stand and deserves to be set aside.

5. Against this, the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 – original Petitioners submits that this matter really needs to be looked at from the aspect that the Company Petition basically is between two groups. Two brothers of the same family and their children are litigating the Company Petition. It is stated that in addition to the present Company Petition between the family, there are two other Company Petitions. One relates to Tirupati Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. having Company Petition No.60/2006 – TP 08/HDB/2016 and the third Company Petition relates to one Bhagyanagar Boards and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. having Company Petition No.26/2005 -TP 06/HDB/2016. The counsel states that from these three Companies, only Tirupati Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. is functional Company and other two Companies which include the present Krishna Metals Industries Pvt. Ltd. are defunct Companies with only prime property as their asset. The counsel submitted that it being dispute between two branches of the same family, the present Respondents – original Petitioners had moved NCLT to find out early solutions as the Petitions were pending for long. The counsel stated that the present Impugned Order along with similar other Order on same date of 22nd February, 2018 was passed by the NCLT in the matter relating to Tirupati Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. It is stated that this was done so as to balance equities between the two branches of the families and to do justice between them. The counsel states that in the other matter, the present Respondents – original Petitioners did not challenge the same in Appeal thinking that when the valuations will be got done in both the matters, things would settle down.

6. The learned counsel for Appellants submitted that the claims regarding two family branches being in dispute were not raised before NCLT and according to him, even Krishna Metals Industries is a running Company.

7. The counsel for Respondents relied on the case of “M.S.D.C. Radharamanan versus M.S.D. Ch