https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113756 A direction requiring the parties to maintain status quo and not act to the prejudice of the company was treated as protective rather than adverse, because it merely compelled compliance with law and restrained conduct harmful to the company's interests. The High Court noted that a shareholder cannot claim prejudice from an order that only prevents unlawful or detrimental action. On that basis, no actionable grievance was found for appellate interference, and the impugned order was upheld as justified. en-us Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113756 A direction requiring the parties to maintain status quo and not act to the prejudice of the company was treated as protective rather than adverse, because it merely compelled compliance with law and restrained conduct harmful to the company's interests. The High Court noted that a shareholder cannot claim prejudice from an order that only prevents unlawful or detrimental action. On that basis, no actionable grievance was found for appellate interference, and the impugned order was upheld as justified. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113756