The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is pressing for interim order mainly on the reason that on 19th October, 2016 the appellant has received a notice dated 4th October, 2016 from the respondent for taking possession of all the properties of the appellant. In para 5 of the application it is stated that the appellant has established a post production facility for editing, grading and graphics and at Bandra (West) property even the marketing and HR team sits. It is also stated that there are around 150 employees in the said property. It is also stated that if the possession of the properties will be taken by the respondent, all the employees of the appellant will be jobless. As far as Noida property is concerned, the statement is also made in para 4 of the application wherein it is stated that the appellant has established a digital studio at Noida property and each setup has separate computerization, lighting and control room. There are 50 persons employed in Noida property. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that property in dispute are also with the possession of the bank as the appellant has availed loan from the banks forming the consortium and purchased the properties from the term loan only. He has also shown the detail of the loan taken which are mentioned in the impugned order itself. It is stated that all the purchased properties have been mortgaged on 1st pari passu basis by the bank forming the consortium. The learned counsel states that the appellant has no intention under these circumstances to interfere in the properties in any manner. The similar is statement made by counsel appearing on behalf of banks who has also filed appeal bearing FPAPMLA-1530/2016 which is listed today from where the loan was taken. Thus, both have no intention to dispose of property till the next date. Even counsel for the appellant states that the possession has been taken
