Prima facie case needed for interim injunctions in a company shareholding dispute; ex parte relief was vacated.

Interim injunctions in a company management and shareholding dispute were refused because the plaintiffs failed to show a prima facie case or reliable material proving lawful share transfers and valid entitlement to represent the company. The court noted that the shareholding controversy was already before the Company Law Board and could not be independently relitigated on the basis of unsupported assertions. The ex parte injunction was therefore vacated, and the clarification application became unnecessary. Despite rejecting substantive interim relief, the court preserved the company's assets by restraining all parties from disposing of them during the suit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for grant of ad interim prohibitory and mandatory injunctions and allied directions concerning the management and shareholding of the company. (ii) Whether the ex parte injunction order deserved to be vacated and the connected application for clarification survived.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for grant of ad interim prohibitory and mandatory injunctions and allied directions concerning the management and shareholding of the company.

Analysis: The claim that the society had transferred its entire shareholding was already the subject matter of proceedings before the Company Law Board, and the plaintiffs had not produced reliable material to establish even prima facie that all transfers had taken place in accordance with law and the company's articles. The court found that the plaintiffs were seeking to litigate the same controversy independently while their entitlement to represent the company itself remained unresolved. The alleged purchase of shares by some plaintiffs was also unsupported by documents showing a valid transfer approved in the manner required.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for interim relief, and the requested injunctions and directions were refused.

Issue (ii): Whether the ex parte injunction order deserved to be vacated and the connected application for clarification survived.

Analysis: Once the court held that no prima facie case had been shown for the reliefs sought, the application seeking clarification of the earlier order could not be sustained. The application for vacation of the ex parte injunction succeeded, while the application for clarification became unnecessary in view of the refusal of substantive interim relief.

Conclusion: The ex parte injunction was vacated and the connected clarification application was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The interim relief proceedings were substantially rejected, though the court preserved the company's assets by restraining all sides from disposing of them during the pendency of the suit.

---