Corporate management cannot be compelled to restore non-shareholders as directors without credible proof of a legal right.

Interim injunction to restore claimants as directors was refused because their alleged 61% contribution was unsupported by reliable proof of payment, source of funds, books of account, income-tax returns, or other contemporaneous material. The land stood in the company's name, the claimants were not shareholders, and no legally recognisable or equitable entitlement was shown. On that basis, the court declined to interfere with internal corporate management or compel induction of non-shareholders as directors at the interim stage, and the protective status quo arrangement was lifted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to interim injunction and restoration as directors of the company on the basis of their claimed investment and alleged removal from directorship.

Analysis: The claim of substantial investment by the plaintiffs was not supported by reliable proof of payment, source of funds, books of account, income-tax returns, or other contemporaneous material. The land was purchased in the name of the company, the plaintiffs were not shareholders, and the court found no basis to accept the assertion that they had contributed 61% of the consideration. In the absence of a demonstrated legal or equitable entitlement, the court declined to interfere in the internal management of the company or to compel induction of non-shareholders as directors at the interim stage.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were not entitled to interim relief, and the application for injunction was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The interim request failed, the protective status quo arrangement was lifted, and the matter was left to proceed on the suit for framing of issues.

Ratio Decidendi: A court will not grant interim relief to compel corporate management to induct or restore non-shareholders as directors absent credible proof of a legally recognizable right and supporting financial evidence.

---