Interim restraint in company proceedings upheld where disputed shareholding and forgery issues remained for tribunal determination.

Interference with a temporary interim order was declined because the main company petition remained pending and the directions did not finally determine the rights of the parties. Disputed questions over shareholding, transfer documents and alleged forgery required adjudication by the Tribunal, and the respondents' grievance was treated as falling within the oppression and mismanagement framework under the Companies Act, 2013. The appellants were left free to raise their defence in the pending proceedings, and the interim restraint on alienation of assets and production of records was not disturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the interim order restraining alienation of company assets and directing production of statutory records, and whether the appellants could displace the respondents' entitlement to invoke the oppression and mismanagement jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The appeal arose from an interim order that did not finally decide the main company petition. The record indicated disputed questions regarding shareholding, transfer documents and alleged forgery, but the appellants themselves disputed the authenticity of the share certificates. The respondents' grievance was treated as one falling within the statutory framework governing oppression and mismanagement. The challenged directions were only temporary in nature, and the appellants were left free to place their defence before the Tribunal in the pending proceedings.

Conclusion: No ground for appellate interference was made out. The interim order was left undisturbed and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Appellate interference is not warranted against a non-final interim order in pending company proceedings where disputed factual questions remain to be decided by the Tribunal and the relief granted is only temporary.

---