IN THE HON’BLE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW BOARD

COMPANY PETITION (CP) NO. _____ OF 2017

[Under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013]

--IN THE MATTER OF—

Mr. Ram, and Ors. ……….………… PETITIONER

VERSUS

Kata and Sons Co. Ltd. ……….………… RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE NO.

List Of Abbreviations 3-4

Index Of Authorities 5-6

(i) Statutes 5

(ii) Cases 5-6

(iii) Books Referred 6

(iv) Web Resources 6

Statement Of Jurisdiction 7

Statement Of Facts 8-9

Statement Of Issues 10

Summary Of Arguments 11

Arguments Advanced 12

1. Whether the removal of Mr. Ram without notice is a violation of

the Natural Justice Principle and appointment of the Interim 12-14
Chairman by the Trustee is the basic violation of this principle?
2. Whether there was the Lack of transparency and impartiality to
right of vote to the Minority shareholder and promoters and
15-18
stakeholders and the violation of the Minority shareholders on the
part of the majority Shareholders in the company?
3. Whether the Kata and Sons Co. Ltd. highlights the Corporate
18-20
Social Liability of the reputed company?

Prayer 21

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

CA Company Act

CCI Competition Commission of India

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CIS Collective Investment Scheme

CLB Company Law Board

Co. Company

Co. Company

Corpn. Corporation

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

Ed. Edition

Govt. Government

Hon’ble Honourable

i.e. That is

Ltd. Limited

3
M.D. Managing Director

M.P. Madhya Pradesh

Mar. March

No. Number

Pvt. Private

ROC Registrar of Companies

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

U.S. United States of America

U/S Under section

v. Versus

4
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

• The Companies Act, 2013

• The Companies Act, 1956

CASES

S. No. CASES Citations

Life Insurance Corporation of India versus 1986 AIR 1370, 1985 SCR Supl.
1
Escorts Ltd. & Ors, (3) 909

2 Amalgamations Limited vs Shankar Sundaram LAWS (MAD)-2011-9-166

(1924) SC 83 Scottish Supreme

3 Baird v Lees
Court

4 Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries [1972] 2 WLR 1289

5 Jaipur vs M/S Green Triveni Developer

6 Lau v Chu [2020] 1 WLR 4656

7 Loch v John Blackwood [1924] AC 783

National Mineral Development vs Dcit, Circle-

8
16(1), Hyderabad

Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corpn. Ltd. v.

9 (1955) 2 SCR 1066
Nageshwara Rao

10 S.P. Jain v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. (1986) 3 SCC 310

5
 Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Cyrus
11 [2021] 227 Comp Cas 1 (SC)
Investment Pvt. Ltd.

The Tata Power Company Limited vs

12
Maharashtra Electricity

BOOKS REFERRED:

• Paranjape N.V. (2017). Company Law, Allahbad: Central Law Agency (Latest
Edition)
• Kapoor G.K. Dhamija S. (2018). Company Law and Practice, New Delhi: Taxmann
Publication Pvt. Lmt.
• Singh A. (2018). Company Law, Lucknow, EBC

WEB RESOURCES

• https://www.scconline.com/
• http://www.duhaime.org/dictionary/diction.aspx
• https://indiankanoon.org/
• http://www.manupatra.com
• http://www.westlaw.org
• http://www.lexisnexis.com
• http://www.judis.nic.in

6
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel for the respondents, Kata & Sons Co. Ltd., hereby humbly submit to this hon’ble
National Company Law Board’s Jurisdiction under Section 2411 of The Companies
Act,2013.

1
241. Application to Tribunal for relief in cases of oppression, etc

(1) Any member of a company who complains that—

(a) The affairs of the company have been or are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public
interest or in a manner prejudicial or oppressive to him or any other member or members or in
a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company; or
(b) The material change, not being a change brought about by, or in the interests of, any creditors,
including debenture holders or any class of shareholders of the company, has taken place in
the management or control of the company, whether by an alteration in the Board of Directors
, or manager, or in the ownership of the company’s shares , or if it has no share capital, in its
membership, or in any other manner whatsoever, and that by reason of such change, it is likely
that the affairs of the company will be conducted in a manner prejudicial to its interests or its
members or any class of members, may apply to the Tribunal ,

provided such member has a right to apply under section 244, for an order under this Chapter.

7
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Kata and Co. Ltd. is a national and international service provider company. Mr. Ram
was appointed CEO of Kata and Sons Co. Ltd. after for four consecutive years.
2. The appointment of Mr. Ram as the CEO was seen more as a generational shift in the
Kata Group.
3. On 24th October,2017, Mr. Ram, was sacked out by the Kata and Sons Co. Ltd. after
meeting of board of director and called for the approval through the general
resolution.
4. After taking consideration the procedure for removal from the post of the Company
under section under sections 149 along with 163 and 242-245 and other relevant
sections and judicial observations, the Kata and Co. Ltd. approved the removal of Mr.
Ram from the post of CEO.
5. Mr. Ram appealed before Board of Director and challenge his removal stating the
reasons for sacking were not specified by Kata and negates the s fiddling with the
culture of 130 yr old company and credential of the office and his reputation.
6. Mr. Ram has started his own business without approval of the Trust. He launched its
own dream project without the approval of the board of director of the company.
There was unequal distribution of profits between the directors and other
shareholders. These charges and manipulation of funds under gratification were raised
by the Chairman and the matter came to light through the media and digital media and
newspapers. Then the company started to think about the mismanagement and
embezzlement or illegal business being carried under his supervision. Therefore, with
immediate effect he was dismissed and removed from the post.
7. Mr Ram claimed before the Company Law Board Tribunal against the decision of the
Board of Director on the basis of his credentials of business and claiming that he was
not indulged in the illegal activities in the Kata group.
8. Mr Ram argued that it is a clear violation of the directions of the Company Law
Board in its various decision and guideline. He further stated a Director cannot be
sacked on fictitious grounds.
9. Mr Ram has given many allegations for interfering in his decision’s in company
decision making. He also accused Kata of ‘Operation of Minority’ claiming that Kata

8
 was trying to reduce the stake of Kapoor’s family in the Kata and Co. Ltd. and reduce
the voting rights of shareholders.
10. Also, Ms. Wadia filled a suit of manipulation of the power of the stakeholders in Kata
and Sons Ltd.. She further argued there is violation of the Law and Procedure done by
Chief Director of the company. The interest of the minority shareholder and
stakeholder a cause of concern in the general meeting of the Board of Directors. The
expansion of the business carried out by the CEO is the violation of credential of
business of the company.
11. A committee was forced four months to decide the successor “Mr. M Gopal Swamy”
became the new CEO of the Kata Co. Ltd. and remember for his well place in history
and will be remember warmly as his ancestor’s.

9
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The following questions are presented before this Hon’ble court for adjudication in the instant
matter:

Whether the removal of Mr. Ram without notice is a violation of the Natural
ISSUE 1 Justice Principle and appointment of the Interim Chairman by the Trustee is the
basic violation of this principle?

Whether there was the Lack of transparency and impartiality to right of vote to
the Minority shareholder and promoters and stakeholders and the violation of
ISSUE 2
the Minority shareholders on the part of the majority Shareholders in the
company?

Whether the Kata and Sons Co. Ltd. highlights the Corporate Social Liability
ISSUE 3
of the reputed company?

10
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the removal of Mr. Ram without notice is a violation of the Natural
Justice Principle and appointment of the Interim Chairman by the Trustee is the
basic violation of this principle?

Mr. Ram removal was not a bias decision. He was given a chance to defend himself in front
of the Board but he started tarnishing the company’s image soon after. The decision was
made by considering the mis-management that is going in company under Mr. Ram. Also, he
was involved in illegal business. Also, the company was continuously in loss under his
supervision. The company’s credibility is considered to be damaged and the smooth
operation of businesses is affected due to the Mr. Ram’s behavior. So, there is no violation of
the Natural Justice Principle in removal of Mr. Ram.

2. Whether there was the Lack of transparency and impartiality to right of vote to
the Minority shareholder and promoters and stakeholders and the violation of
the Minority shareholders on the part of the majority Shareholders in the
company?

It is humbly contended before the Hon'ble Court that Kata and Co. Ltd has always ensured
any new shares that are being issued must first be offered to the existing shareholders in such
proportions as to preserve their percentage shareholding in a company. This is to ensure that
their investment is not diluted without first having the opportunity to invest further in a
company to maintain their current shareholding. There is always review of the articles and
shareholders’ agreement before a shareholder invests to acquire a 10% stake.

3. Whether the Kata and Sons Co. Ltd. highlights the Corporate Social Liability of
the reputed company?

It is humbly contended before the Hon'ble Court that based on the facts and circumstances of
the case, Kata and Co. is a reputed company as it is a national and international service
provider. SECTION 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 deals with the Corporate Social liability
of the reputed company.

11
 ARGUMENT ADVANCED

1. Whether the removal of Mr. Ram without notice is a violation of the Natural
Justice Principle and appointment of the Interim Chairman by the Trustee is
the basic violation of this principle?

1. Your Lordship, it is respectfully argued before this Hon'ble Tribunal that Ram's
removal as CEO followed protocol, and the trustee's nomination of the interim
chairman followed protocol as well.
2. The dismissal of Directors is governed by Section 169 of the Companies Act, 2013
(formerly Section 284 of the Companies Act, 1956). A shareholder has the legal
power to remove a director at a general meeting using an Ordinary Resolution, as
stated in Section 169 of the Companies Act, 2013. This privilege cannot be restricted
by any clause in the MOA/AOA or any other document or agreement. It is
respectfully submitted that a shareholder cannot be prevented from calling an
extraordinary general meeting to remove a director, according to the honourable
supreme court.2
3. 4By virtue of the natural justice concept, it is crucial that the concerned director be
given a fair chance to present his defence for why he shouldn't be fired. After hearing
his defence, the members should decide whether to remove him. In this instant case,
the Board's decision resulted in Mr. Ram's initial removal from his position as CEO of
Kata and Sons but not from his Directorship.
4. Mr. Ram then challenged his dismissal in front while also beginning to damage Kata
and Sons' reputation. He asserted that there is money manipulation in the corporation
and that profits were not distributed equally among the directors and other
shareholders. Newspapers, digital media, and the media as a whole helped bring the
situation and these claims to light.
5. He did this despite still serving as the Chairman of the company, fully aware of the
harm and damage his actions would do. It is important to note that Mr. Ram never

2
Life Insurance Corporation of India versus Escorts Ltd. & Ors, 1986 AIR 1370, 1985 SCR Supl.
(3) 909

12
 voiced any complaints about oppression or poor management prior to being fired as
CEO.
6. It is most humbly stated that Mr. Ram's conduct described above led to his swift
dismissal and removal from his position.
7. It is a well-established fact that poor business decisions and the removal of a person
from directorship cannot ever be interpreted as acts oppressive or detrimental to the
interests of minorities. This is based on legal precedent from the United Kingdom and
Privy Council's decisions3 on the matter. Applications for winding up must be based
on a legitimate lack of confidence in how the firm is being run and its affairs
managed.
8. More importantly, the lack of confidence must not result from being outvoted in
business affairs or on what is referred to as the company's domestic policy; rather,
whenever the lack of confidence is based on a lack of probity in the management of
the company's affairs, the latter justifies the former.
9. In the present instance, Mr. Ram was fired due to the Board's other members' entire
loss of faith in him as well as their own loss of confidence in him. For the reasonable
and equitable provision to be invoked, there must be a justifiable loss of confidence in
the directors' behaviour.4 It is argued from the S.P. Jain v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. Case5
that a simple lack of trust between majority and minority shareholders would not be
sufficient cause. Only two circumstances—(a) functional deadlocks and (b) corporate
quasi-partnerships where there was a breakdown of trust and confidence—cause the
"just and equitable provision" to take effect.
10. While fully aware that Kata Sons is the primary promoter and largest shareholder
group, Mr. Ram has gradually concentrated all power and authority in his own hands
as Chairman of all the major Kata operating companies over the past three to four
years. He has also gone about systematically reducing Kata Sons' representation on
the Boards of various Kata Companies. This went directly against the Kata Group's
customs and historical practises. According to Mr. Ram, he wasn't given a "free
hand." It may seem ironic, but in the counsel's opinion, Mr. Ram took advantage of

3
Loch v John Blackwood, [1924] AC 783; Baird v Lees, (1924) SC 83 Scottish Supreme Court;
Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries, [1972] 2 WLR 1289; Lau v Chu, [ 2020] 1 WLR 4656.
4
Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corpn. Ltd. v. Nageshwara Rao, (1955) 2 SCR 1066
5
S.P. Jain v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. (1986) 3 SCC 310

13
 this "free hand" and trust in him to weaken the management structures of Kata
Companies and violate his fiduciary duties.
11. The Company has suffered severe harm as a result of Mr. Ram's statements, and all
shareholders have suffered significant financial losses totaling tens of thousands of
crores. It is believed by the respondents that Mr. Ram alone is to blame for these
losses, which are a direct result of his careless and inaccurate statements. If he had
done the proper thing and resigned from the Chairmanships and Boards as is
customary, his actions and remarks would not have led to instability and confusion in
these firms and their management. Instead, Mr. Ram appears to have adopted the
position that, even if he finally must resign, he would nevertheless enjoy the
gratification of having ruined a prestigious institution after only five years in office.
12. Ironically, Mr. Ram is fighting to keep his seat on the boards of the very Kata
Companies he has attacked with his baseless accusations and severely harmed. He
claims that Kata Companies have legacy problems, but Mr. Ram is also trying to
secure a permanent seat on the boards of these Kata Companies while making untrue
accusations against them. The respondents believe that his activities are motivated by
a perverted desire to tarnish the "Kata" brand and purposefully reduce shareholder
value.
13. All of the advantages of Kata and Sons Co. Ltd. would undoubtedly be in jeopardy if
Mr. Ram kept his position as chairman, as doing so would probably result in the Kata
Group's disintegration.
14. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that, a person who attempts to set his own house on
fire in anger of not receiving something he believes is rightfully due to him has no
right remaining a member of any decision-making body (not just the Board of a
company). 6

6
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Cyrus Investment Pvt. Ltd. [2021] 227 Comp Cas 1 (SC)

14
 2. Whether there was the Lack of transparency and impartiality to right of vote to
the Minority shareholder and promoters and stakeholders and the violation of the
Minority shareholders on the part of the majority Shareholders in the company?

Balance to be struck between the rule of the majority and the rights of the minority

15. The fundamental principle defining the operation of shareholders democracy is that
the rule of majority shall prevail. However, it is also necessary to ensure that this
power of the majority is placed within reasonable bounds and does not result in
oppression of the minority and mis-management of the company. The minority
interests, therefore, have to be given a voice to make their opinions known at the
decision-making levels. The law should provide for such a mechanism. If necessary,
in cases where a minority has been unfairly treated in violation of the law, the avenue
to approach an appropriate body for protecting their interests and those of the
company should be provided for. The law must balance the need for effective decision
making on corporate matters on the basis of consensus without permitting persons in
control of the company, i.e., the majority, to stifle action for redressal arising out of
their own wrong doing.

Minority and ‘Minority Interest’ should be specified in the substantive Law

16. At present, in case of a company having share capital, not less than 100 members or not
less than 1/10th of total number of members, whichever is less or any member or
members holding not less than 1/10th of issued share capital have the right to apply to
CLB/NCLT in case of oppression and mismanagement. In case of companies not
having share capital, not less than 1/5th of the total number of members has the right to
apply.
17. To reflect the interest of the “Minority”, 10% criteria in case of companies having share
capital and 20% criteria in the case of other companies is provided for in the existing
Act. In Section 395 of the Act, the dissenting shareholders have been put at the limit of
10% of shares. Thus, Minority could be defined as holding not more than 10% shares
for the limited purpose of agitating their rights before the appropriate forum.
18. Oppression is defined in section 397(2). It is defined as conducting the company’s
affairs in a manner prejudicial to public interest or in a manner oppressive to any

15
 member or members. Mis-management has been defined in section 398(1) of the Act,
as conducting the affairs of the company in a manner prejudicial to public interest or in
a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company.
19. The Committee on examination of the existing provisions felt that a reasonable
framework could be enabled through specific provisions to be brought in the new Act
to define “Minority” (on the lines of clause (2.2) above) and the “Minority Interest “(on
the lines of clause (2.3) above).

Representation of minority interests

20. While the Committee feels that the concept of independent directors would provide an
objective scrutiny of management, operations and decision making, the Boards of the
companies could also incorporate the concept of representation of specific minority
shareholders groups. It was observed that the existing Act provided an option to
company to adopt proportional representation for the appointment of directors but this
option was rarely used. A view was expressed that the applicability of the provisions of
Section 265 (existing Act) could be made mandatory. The specific minority appointed
director/independent director could also play an important role in investor protection.
The Committee view was that the existing option may be retained.

Right of shareholders to be informed through correct disclosures

21. The risks of investors can be reduced / minimised through adequate transparency and
disclosures. The law should indicate in clear terms the rights of members of the
company to get all information to which they are entitled in a timely manner. The
financial information and disclosures to be provided to shareholders should not be in
excessively technical format but should be simple to understand. This will enhance the
credibility of the company and will help the shareholders to take an informed and
conscious decision in respect of their investments. Besides statutory information, which
would be regulated through law, the information could also be made available through
other means like print, electronic media, company website etc. A regime of stringent
disclosure norms should be provided for in case of companies accessing funds through
public offers. There should be adequate and deterrent penalties in law against wrong
disclosures.

16
Right of minority to be heard

22. Once the principle of protection of “Minority Interest” is recognized in the Act, there
would also be a need to put in place an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that such
provisions relating to “Minority Interest” do not obstruct the Board or the management
from performing their functions genuinely in the interests of the company. The Board
and the management should, therefore, be protected from undue and unjustified
interference from unscrupulous shareholders acting in the guise of investors’ rights.

Rights of minority shareholders during meetings of the company

23. Sometimes, the meetings of the company are so organised so as to deprive the minority
of an effective hearing. The procedures to be prescribed under the Act should safeguard
against such behaviour by the company. There should be extensive use of postal ballot
including electronic media to enable shareholders to participate in meetings.

Rights in case of Oppression and Mismanagement

24. There are adequate provisions in the existing Act to prevent Oppression and
Mismanagement. Minority, represented by specified number of members or members
holding requisite percentage of equity capital are entitled to approach Courts/Tribunals
for protection of their interests. The quasi-judicial body is empowered to order a
number of remedial measures for regulation of the conduct of company’s affairs. These
measures, inter-alia, include purchase of shares or interests of any members of company
by other members; termination, setting aside or modification of agreements relating to
managerial personnel; setting aside of transactions relating to transfer, delivery of
goods etc, or any other matter for which Court/Tribunal feels that provisions should be
made. The Court/Tribunal is also empowered to appoint such a number of persons as
necessary to effectively safeguard interest of the company. Kata & Co. Ltd has always
followed these principles.

CASE LAWS -

25. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. v. CYRUS INVESTMENT Pvt. Ltd.7

7
[2021] 227 Comp Cas 1 (SC)

17
The Supreme Court in Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Cyrus Investments (P) Ltd., which
clarified that even a director’s removal cannot be held to be oppressive/prejudicial. The Act
does not bar the majority shareholders from initiating such an action against the minority.
The only qualifying criteria as provided under Section 244 is that the applicant must (a) hold
not less than 1/10th of the company’s issued share capital (all calls/sum due for shares held to
be paid); or (b) not less than 100 members or 1/10th of the total members, whichever is less.
If the company does not have share capital, the applicants must not be less than 1/5th of the
total members.

26. SP Jain v. Kalinga Tubes8

In SP Jain v. Kalinga Tubes, Supreme Court held that the alleged oppressive action must
involve a lack of fair dealing and probity with a member about his proprietary rights as a
shareholder. As a result, the act in question must harm the petitioner in his capacity or character
as a member or shareholder, not in any other role such as director or creditor.

27. Amalgamations Limited vs Shankar Sundaram9

It was decided that to allege oppression or mismanagement, there has to be legal relation
between the aggrieved and the company, and therefore, a shareholder of a holding company
cannot claim remedy for oppression by its subsidiary company.

8
(1986) 3 SCC 310
9
LAWS (MAD)-2011-9-166

18
 3. Whether the Kata and Sons Co. Ltd. highlights the Corporate Social Liability of
the reputed company?

28. Section 135 of the Companies Act 2013, highlights the Corporate Social Liability of
the company.

SECTION 135 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 CORPORATE SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY

135. (1) Every company having net worth of rupees five hundred crore or more, or turnover
of rupees one thousand crore or more or a net profit of rupees five crore or more during any
financial year shall constitute a Corporate Social Responsibility Committee of the Board
consisting of three or more directors, out of which at least one director shall be an
independent director.

(2) The Board's report under sub-section (3) of Section 134 shall disclose the composition of
the Corporate Social Responsibility Committee.

(3) The Corporate Social Responsibility Committee shall -

(a) formulate and recommend to the Board, a Corporate Social Responsibility Policy which
shall indicate the activities to be undertaken by the company as specified in Schedule VII:

(b) recommend the amount of expenditure to be incurred on the activities referred to in clause
(a) and

(c) monitor the Corporate Social Responsibility Policy of the company time to time.

(4) The Board of every company referred to in sub-section (1) shall -

(a) after taking into account the recommendations made by the Corporate Social
Responsibility Committee, approve the Corporate Social Responsibility Policy for the

19
company and disclose contents of such Policy in its report and also place it on the company's
website, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed; and

(b) ensure that the activities as are included in Corporate Social Responsibility Policy of the
company are undertaken by the company.

(5) The Board of every company referred to in sub-section (1), shall ensure that the company
spends, in every financial year, at least two per cent, of the average net profits of the
company made during the three immediately preceding financial years, in pursuance of its
Corporate Social Responsibility Policy.

Provided that the company shall give preference to the local area and areas around it where it
operates, for spending the amount earmarked for Corporate Social Responsibility activities:

Provided further that if the company fails to spend such amount, the Board shall, in its report
made under clause (0) of sub-section (3) of section 134, specify the reasons for not spending
the amount.

29. Explanation –

For the purposes of this section "average net profit shall be calculated in accordance with the
provisions of section 198. Corporate Social Liability promotes a vision of the business to
shareholders, stakeholders, investors. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) implies a
concept, whereby companies decide voluntarily to contribute to a better society and a cleaner
environment – a concept, whereby the companies integrate social and other useful concerns
in their business operations for the betterment of their stakeholders and society in general in a
voluntary way. Corporate social responsibility is traditionally broken into four categories:
environmental, philanthropic, ethical, and economic responsibility. Kata and Co. Ltd. Has a
CSR committee. Company always followed its environment, ethical, philanthropic and
financial responsibility.

30. CASE LAWS -

The Tata Power Company Limited vs Maharashtra Electricity

Jaipur vs M/S Green Triveni Developer on 24 October, 2017

National Mineral Development vs Dcit, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad, on 7 September, 2017

20
 THE PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED,

AUTHORITIES CITED AND PLEADINGS ADVANCED, IT IS MOST HUMBLY
PRAYED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT:

1. To declare, that the removal of Mr. Ram without notice is not a violation of the Natural
Justice Principle and appointment of the Interim Chairman by the Trustee is not the
basic violation of this principle, and
2. To declare, that there was not Lack of transparency and no impartiality to right of vote
to the Minority shareholder and promoters and stakeholders and there was no violation
of the Minority shareholders on the part of the majority Shareholders in the company.

AND/OR PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS

HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY
AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENTS AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL

FOREVER PRAY.

All of which is humbly prayed,

On behalf of the Kata and Sons Co. Ltd.

Counsels for the Respondents

21