Mandatory interim injunctions for share transfer require a strong prima facie case and strict company-law compliance.

A mandatory interim injunction altering share ownership should issue only on a strong prima facie case and strict compliance with the company-law framework governing transfer of shares and duplicate certificates. Where entitlement is disputed, material facts are suppressed, the relevant company-court proceedings are not disclosed, and the company is not properly before the court, such relief is inappropriate. The statutory requirements for valid transfer instruments, proof of loss or destruction, and the company's role under the Companies Act must be examined before compelling transfer or issuance of duplicates. On these facts, the injunction was unsustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether an ad interim mandatory injunction directing issue of duplicate share certificates and transfer of shares could be sustained where the plaintiff had not established a clear prima facie right, the company was not properly before the court, and the relevant company-law requirements governing transfer and issue of duplicate shares were not addressed.

Analysis: The relief sought was effectively final in character and could not be granted as a routine interim order. The plaintiff's claim to ownership of the shares depended on disputed facts and an alleged compromise that was itself the subject of proceedings in the company court. Material facts had been suppressed, including the prior company-court adjudication concerning directorships and the pending application to record the compromise. The order was also made against a company not impleaded as a party in the suit, and the trial court failed to consider the statutory scheme governing transfer of shares and issue of duplicate certificates, including the requirements of valid transfer instruments, proof of loss or destruction, and the company's role under the Companies Act. In such circumstances, no prima facie case for a mandatory injunction was made out, and the grant of such relief amounted to an abuse of the injunction jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The ad interim mandatory injunction was unsustainable and was set aside; the application for such relief was rejected.

Final Conclusion: Interim mandatory relief compelling transfer of shares and issue of duplicate certificates cannot be granted where the applicant's entitlement is disputed, material facts are withheld, and the statutory requirements governing share transfer are not satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: A mandatory interim injunction, especially one having the effect of altering title or restoring a disputed proprietary position, can be granted only on a strong prima facie case and after strict scrutiny of the governing statutory framework; it cannot issue to bypass mandatory company-law requirements or on suppression of material facts.

---