Status quo orders protecting a company's interests are not prejudicial where they only restrain unlawful or detrimental conduct.

A direction requiring the parties to maintain status quo and not act to the prejudice of the company was treated as protective rather than adverse, because it merely compelled compliance with law and restrained conduct harmful to the company's interests. The High Court noted that a shareholder cannot claim prejudice from an order that only prevents unlawful or detrimental action. On that basis, no actionable grievance was found for appellate interference, and the impugned order was upheld as justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the Company Law Board, directing the parties to maintain status quo and not act to the prejudice of the company, warranted interference in appeal.

Analysis: The order impugned before the Court merely required the appellants to adhere to the law and restrained them from acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company. Such a direction was treated as innocuous and protective of the company's interest rather than adverse to the appellants. The Court held that a shareholder cannot complain of prejudice from an order that only prevents unlawful or detrimental conduct, and therefore no actionable grievance arose for appellate interference.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be without merit and the impugned order was found justified.

---