Interlocutory status quo orders merit no appeal interference absent clear jurisdictional error or actual prejudice.

A short-lived interlocutory status quo arrangement pending completion of pleadings will not ordinarily be disturbed in appeal unless a clear legal or jurisdictional error and actual prejudice are shown. A transitory direction to maintain status quo over property and shares was treated as innocuous where the relevant allotment and transfer steps had already been completed and no imminent alienation was demonstrated. A factual observation about a proposed management arrangement was not treated as an injunction. The appellate forum declined to pre-judge the pending company petition and left the interim application to be decided by the statutory tribunal on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned interim order suffered from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting appellate interference; (ii) Whether the order was unsustainable on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned interim order suffered from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting appellate interference.

Analysis: The order under challenge was only a short-lived transitory arrangement passed pending filing of pleadings and consideration of interim relief by the Company Law Board. The direction to maintain status quo regarding property and shares was found to be innocuous, since the relevant share allotment and transfer-related steps had already been completed and no further alienation or allotment was shown to be imminent. The record also showed that the observation regarding the proposed management arrangement merely noted a factual position and did not operate as an injunction. In such circumstances, no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity was established.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the order was unsustainable on merits.

Analysis: The challenge did not disclose such patent illegality or prejudice as would justify interference with an ad hoc interim arrangement. The appellate court declined to enter into the merits of the pending company petition or pre-judge issues that were still to be considered by the Company Law Board after completion of pleadings. The appropriate course was to allow the statutory forum to decide the interim application on merits.

Conclusion: The impugned order was held not to call for interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected at the threshold on merits of the interim challenge, and the parties were left to pursue the pending company proceedings before the Company Law Board.

Ratio Decidendi: A short-lived interlocutory status quo arrangement passed pending completion of pleadings will not be interfered with in appeal unless a clear legal or jurisdictional error and actual prejudice are shown.

---