Firm board’s decisions subject to outcome of Preity’s appeal: Court

While passing no restraining order on a plea filed by Preity Zinta, film actress and a director of KPH Dream Cricket Private Limited, the court of Additional Sessions Judge on Saturday has held that anything done by the Board of Directors of the company in a meeting dated July 7, 2025, or subsequent thereto would be subject to the outcome of the appeal as well as application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Zinta had challenged an order of the trial court dismissing her suit against co-directors Mohit Burman and Ness Wadia. In an separate application filed before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Zinta sought stay on the order during the pendency of the appeal.

The Civil Judge, Chandigarh, had, in an order dated May 31, dismissed the civil suit filed by Zinta. She had prayed to declare the extraordinary general meeting of the company that took place on April 21 as illegal and invalid. She contended that the meeting was conducted by Burman with the active support of Wadia in violation and total disregard of the provisions of the Companies Act as well as Articles of the company.

The counsel for appellant Zinta submitted that the very purpose of the appeal would be frustrated if the same was not decided immediately.

After hearing the arguments, the court said keeping in view the voluminous record and the fact that replies to the referred applications were yet to be filed by some respondents and even power of attorneys on behalf of respondents had not been filed so far, it was not possible to decide the appeal or application at this stage without hearing detailed arguments and receiving record from the trial court.

The court said the present appeal was adjourned to August 7 for filing power of attorneys on behalf of respondents and replies to the applications by the remaining respondents.

In the meantime, it was held that anything done by the Board of Directors in the July 7 meeting or subsequent thereto would be subject to the outcome of the appeal as well as the application.

Advocate Amitabh Tewari, who appeared for Wadia, argued that since the plaint filed by the appellant had already been rejected, the court could not pass any injunction order and entertain the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.

The court said neither any restraint order had been passed nor any finding had been given on the application.

Chandigarh