Appellate interference with discretionary interim restraint refused where no irreparable prejudice was shown and vacation application was pending.

Appellate interference with a discretionary interim restraint was declined because the appellant showed no grave or irreparable prejudice from the Single Judge's refusal to stay the National Company Law Tribunal's status quo direction. The appellant had already obtained possession of the secured property, had itself moved the Tribunal to vacate the order, and that application was pending before the competent forum for prompt consideration. The jurisdictional objection was also to be addressed by the Tribunal in accordance with law. On those facts, the challenge to the interim order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the interim order of the Single Judge declining to stay the National Company Law Tribunal's status quo direction warranted interference in appeal.

Analysis: The appeal concerned an interim order, not a final adjudication. The appellant had already obtained possession of the secured property and had itself moved the Tribunal for vacation of the status quo order. The Tribunal was listed to consider that application shortly, and the jurisdictional objection raised by the appellant was to be addressed by the Tribunal in accordance with law. In these circumstances, no grave or irreparable prejudice was shown to justify appellate interference with the Single Judge's discretionary refusal to grant stay.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the challenge to the interim order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Appellate interference with a discretionary interim order is unwarranted where the impugned restraint causes no demonstrated irreparable prejudice, the affected party already has possession, and an efficacious application for vacation of the order is pending before the competent forum.

---