Interim status quo orders in company disputes will stand absent clear error or prejudice to the parties.

An appellate forum will not disturb a reasoned interim order preserving status quo in shareholding, directorship, and bank account operations where the order is designed to protect the subject matter of the lis pending adjudication. The tribunal noted that the protective arrangement was meant to prevent prejudice arising from rival allegations over management and alleged diversion of funds, and that the earlier protective order had not been challenged. On that basis, no clear error or prejudice was shown, so interference was declined and the interim protection was allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the interim order maintaining status quo on shareholding and directorship and regulating bank account operations called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The appeal challenged an interim arrangement intended to preserve the existing position of the parties pending adjudication of the company petition. The order was passed to protect the subject matter of the dispute and to prevent prejudice arising from the rival allegations concerning management, shareholding, and alleged diversion of funds. The tribunal also noted that the earlier protective order had not been challenged.

Conclusion: No interference with the interim order was warranted, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The interim protection granted by the tribunal was allowed to continue, and the appellate challenge was not accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate forum will not interfere with a reasoned interim order preserving the status quo and protecting the subject matter of the lis unless a clear error or prejudice is shown.

---