Statutory remedy and interim relief must be reasoned properly; unsupported maintainability findings and status quo directions were set aside.

Maintainability of a civil suit must be tested against the governing statutory framework, including any specific remedy under the Companies Act, and cannot rest on a mere chronology of events; the High Court's finding on maintainability was therefore unsustainable. Interim directions also require a reasoned assessment of prima facie case and balance of convenience, and unsupported directions to consider a requisition notice and maintain status quo could not stand. The impugned order was set aside, and the substantive dispute was left to be decided afresh by the High Court on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit could be held maintainable notwithstanding the objection that the statutory remedy under the Companies Act had to be pursued; (ii) whether the High Court was justified in sustaining interim directions requiring consideration of the requisition notice and continuation of status quo.

Issue (i): Whether the suit could be held maintainable notwithstanding the objection that the statutory remedy under the Companies Act had to be pursued.

Analysis: The existence of a civil right and the bar, if any, to a civil suit had to be examined as a question of law. A general reference to the parties' history or chronology of events could not by itself answer the objection that the suit was not maintainable. Where a specific statutory remedy was asserted to be available, the question of maintainability required a legally sound determination on the statutory framework and not a factual narrative.

Conclusion: The finding of maintainability recorded by the High Court was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in sustaining interim directions requiring consideration of the requisition notice and continuation of status quo.

Analysis: The High Court had recorded a cryptic conclusion on prima facie case and had not given a clear or reasoned finding on balance of convenience. The directions issued regarding continuation of status quo and compliance with the requisition notice were found inconsistent with the surrounding findings and were not supported by adequate reasoning. In the circumstances, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal before the High Court was directed to be disposed of on merits expeditiously.

Conclusion: The interim directions were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not stand and the appellate intervention resulted in setting it aside, leaving the substantive dispute to be decided afresh in the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding on maintainability and interim relief must rest on a legally reasoned examination of the governing statutory bar or remedy and cannot be sustained on vague equitable considerations or unsupported interim directions.

---