Interim relief in company disputes turns on prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm; broad injunction refused, limited protection granted.

Interim relief in company proceedings is assessed on the settled tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. On those parameters, broad interim protection was declined because the petitioners did not establish a sufficient prima facie entitlement and the balance of convenience was not in their favour. The Tribunal also held that deputing a security guard did not amount to legal possession on behalf of the company. At the same time, it noted concerns arising from an unregistered lease first acted upon for five years and a later registered lease for 29 years during the proceedings, and issued limited protective directions to preserve the disputed property pending final adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to interim relief in the company petition, and whether the respondents' lease arrangement warranted interim protection of the company's assets pending final adjudication.

Analysis: The Tribunal tested the prayer for interim relief on the settled parameters of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. It found that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to the broad interim reliefs sought, and that the balance of convenience did not lie in their favour. The Tribunal also held that the petitioners' claim of possession by deputing a security guard could not be accepted as legal possession on behalf of the company. At the same time, it noticed that the lease was first acted upon through an unregistered instrument for five years and was later registered for 29 years during pendency of the proceedings, which raised concern as to the manner in which the respondents had proceeded in relation to the company's property.

Conclusion: The prayer for interim relief was rejected, but limited protective directions were issued to preserve the company's property during pendency of the main proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The interim application did not succeed on the claimed grounds for broad injunction, yet the Tribunal granted narrow status quo-type protection to prevent alteration of the disputed property pending further consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim relief in company proceedings depends on a demonstrated prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm, and where these are not established broad injunctions will be declined, though limited protective orders may still be made to preserve the subject matter of dispute.

---