Interim relief in oppression and mismanagement disputes may be refused where parallel High Court proceedings already cover the same assets and arrangements.

Interim relief in an oppression and mismanagement petition requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience and a risk of irreparable injury. Where the same business arrangement, assets and related disputes were already under the High Court's supervision in connected arbitration proceedings, with directions and commissioners in place, the Tribunal could properly refuse overlapping interim orders. The requested status quo directions on management, shareholding, assets and access to accounts would have duplicated or conflicted with the High Court's ongoing control, so no interference with the refusal was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing interim relief in an oppression and mismanagement petition where parallel proceedings concerning the same business arrangement and assets were pending before the High Court.

Analysis: Interim protection under the companies law requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury. The Court found that the parties' disputes, assets, and business arrangements were already under consideration before the High Court in connected arbitration-related proceedings, where multiple directions had been passed and commissioners appointed to oversee implementation and inspection. In that setting, the reliefs sought before the Tribunal, including status quo on management, shareholding, assets, and access to accounts, substantially overlapped with matters already being dealt with by the High Court. The Tribunal was therefore justified in declining to pass interim orders that could create inconsistency or conflict with the High Court's ongoing supervision.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant interim relief was upheld and the appellant failed to establish grounds for interference.

---