Procedural Remedies for Challenging Search and Seizure of Corporate Records in Punjab and Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings

When law‑enforcement agencies in Chandigarh execute a search warrant against a corporate entity, the immediacy of the intrusion can jeopardise not only evidentiary material but also the day‑to‑day functioning of the business. The Punjab and Haryana High Court (PHHC) has repeatedly underscored that any seizure of corporate books, electronic data, or statutory registers must be tightly circumscribed by the powers conferred under the BNS and the procedural safeguards enshrined in the BNSS. Failure to invoke the correct procedural remedies at the earliest stage often results in irrevocable loss of records, disruption of statutory compliance, and exposure to severe criminal liability.

The urgency of protecting corporate records is amplified in PHHC criminal matters where the prosecuting authority may seek to rely on seized documents as the keystone of its case. An interim injunction, a bail‑condition specific to preservation of evidence, or a petition under Order XVIII of the BNS can forestall irreversible damage. However, these remedies demand precise timing, a clear articulation of the alleged excesses in the search, and an immediate filing strategy that aligns with the high‑court’s procedural sequencing.

Chandigarh’s jurisdictional particularities—such as the requirement that a search‑warrant must be signed by a magistrate of the Sessions Court and the mandatory presence of a senior police officer during seizure—create additional layers of complexity. Practitioners must therefore be conversant not only with the substantive criminal law but also with the exact procedural steps that the PHHC expects in order to entertain a challenge. The following sections dissect the legal issue, outline criteria for selecting counsel, and present a curated list of lawyers experienced in navigating these delicate remedies.

Legal Issue: Detailed Exploration of Search‑and‑Seizure Challenges in Corporate Contexts

Under the BNSS, a search‑warrant authorising entry into corporate premises is valid only when it specifies the exact premises, the precise documents or electronic media to be seized, and the factual basis justifying the intrusion. The PHHC has interpreted the requirement of “specificity” to extend to the corporate structure: the warrant must name the legal entity, the corporate office location, and, where relevant, the particular branch or department. Any deviation—such as a blanket order to seize “all records”—is susceptible to immediate contempt of procedural mandates and can form the ground for a petition under Order XVIII of the BNS seeking a stay of the seizure.

Procedurally, a corporation must act within a tight window. The moment the police present the warrant, the corporate representative has the right to request a copy of the warrant, inspect its contents, and note any discrepancies. If the warrant is over‑broad, the corporate counsel can raise an objection on the spot and demand that only the specifically listed items be taken. Failure to do so may be construed as acquiescence, weakening any later claim for interim relief. Consequently, many counsel advise filing a temporary injunction under Order II of the BNS within 24 hours of the seizure, arguing that the continuing possession of the records threatens the corporation’s right to a fair trial and may impair the preservation of intangible assets.

The PHHC has also recognised the concept of “interim preservation” where the court can order the police to retain seized material in a sealed inventory, thereby preventing tampering while the corporation pursues a substantive challenge. Such an order is typically sought through a petition for “interim protection of evidence,” invoking the powers under Order VIII of the BNS. The petition must demonstrate that the corporation possesses a legitimate expectation of confidentiality, that the seized material is essential for its defence, and that there exists a real risk of destruction or alteration if the material remains in police custody.

Electronic evidence introduces further procedural urgency. The PHHC has held that a search of corporate servers and cloud‑based storage must be accompanied by a forensic expert appointed by the court, as mandated by the latest amendments to the BNSS. Without such an expert, any extraction of data is vulnerable to being declared inadmissible, and the corporation can immediately move for a “re‑examination order” to ensure that the forensic process complies with the standards set by the High Court. The procedural sequencing therefore follows a strict order: (1) verify warrant specificity; (2) demand presence of a forensic expert for electronic seizures; (3) file an interim injunction; (4) seek an order for sealed inventory; (5) pursue a substantive review of the search’s legality.

In addition to the High Court, lower courts—particularly the Sessions Court that originally authorized the warrant—can be approached for a “review of the warrant” under Order XIV of the BNS. However, the PHHC prefers that parties exhaust all remedial avenues at the trial‑court level before escalating the matter, introducing a procedural hierarchy that litigants must respect. Ignoring this sequencing can lead to dismissal of the petition for being premature, thereby forfeiting the opportunity for interim protection.

Finally, the corporate entity should be ready to produce a comprehensive “custody log” that details the nature, quantity, and condition of every seized item. This log, submitted alongside the interim injunction petition, serves as a tangible record that the court can use to assess the proportionality of the seizure. The PHHC emphasizes that a well‑structured log can significantly influence the court’s willingness to grant interim relief, as it demonstrates the corporation’s commitment to transparency while highlighting the potential prejudice of continued police possession.

Choosing a Lawyer: Critical Attributes for Effective Representation in Search‑and‑Seizure Challenges

Effective advocacy in PHHC criminal matters involving corporate records hinges on a lawyer’s mastery of both substantive criminal law and the intricate procedural framework of the BNSS. The ideal counsel must possess a proven track record of filing successful interim injunctions under Order II of the BNS and of securing sealed‑inventory orders under Order VIII. Experience before the PHHC is indispensable because the High Court’s pronouncements on search‑and‑seizure have evolved through nuanced judgments that are often cited in subsequent petitions.

A crucial attribute is the lawyer’s ability to act with immediacy. The time‑sensitive nature of these challenges means that the chosen attorney must have a responsive practice model, capable of filing a petition within hours of the seizure. Such speed is not merely tactical; it is a procedural requirement that the PHHC scrutinises when deciding whether to grant interim relief. Lawyers who maintain a dedicated “corporate criminal desk” within the Chandigarh office are therefore better positioned to meet the urgency demanded by these cases.

Technical competence in dealing with electronic evidence is another non‑negotiable factor. Lawyers should be comfortable drafting detailed petitions that request the appointment of a court‑approved forensic expert, referencing the latest amendments to the BNSS that govern digital searches. Collaboration with reputable forensic firms, as well as familiarity with the chain‑of‑custody standards demanded by the PHHC, enhances a lawyer’s ability to protect the integrity of seized electronic data.

Finally, the lawyer must demonstrate strategic foresight in navigating the procedural hierarchy. Knowing when to approach the Sessions Court for a warrant review, when to elevate the matter to the PHHC, and how to synchronize bail‑condition negotiations with interim injunction applications can dramatically affect the outcome. Counsel who can draft precise, tightly argued petitions that anticipate the High Court’s objections—such as claims of over‑broad seizure or lack of forensic oversight—are the most effective protectors of corporate rights.

Best Lawyers Practising Corporate Criminal Defence in the Punjab and Haryana High Court

SimranLaw Chandigarh

★★★★★

SimranLaw Chandigarh maintains a robust practice before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh and the Supreme Court of India, offering specialised counsel on urgent search‑and‑seizure challenges. The firm’s team has repeatedly secured interim injunctions under Order II of the BNS, ensuring that corporate records are shielded from premature police disposal. Their litigation strategy prioritises immediate verification of warrant specificity and swift filing of preservation petitions, aligning with the High Court’s emphasis on procedural timing.

• Filing of interim injunctions under Order II of the BNS to halt seizure.
• Petitions for sealed‑inventory orders under Order VIII of the BNS.
• Challenge of over‑broad search warrants under Order XVIII of the BNS.
• Coordination with forensic experts for electronic evidence preservation.
• Preparation of comprehensive custody logs for court review.
• Appeals to the Supreme Court on procedural violations in search operations.
• Advisory on compliance with statutory registers during investigations.
• Representation in bail‑condition negotiations that include evidence preservation.

Verma, Singh & Co. Legal Advisors

★★★★☆

Verma, Singh & Co. Legal Advisors specialises in corporate criminal defences within the PHHC and has cultivated deep familiarity with the procedural nuances of the BNSS. Their counsel routinely opposes blanket seizure orders by demanding precise itemisation on warrants and has successfully secured stays of execution pending detailed judicial scrutiny. The firm’s approach combines rigorous statutory analysis with practical experience in navigating lower‑court reviews, ensuring that corporate clients receive layered protection.

• Drafting objections to non‑specific search warrants.
• Petitioning for interim protection of electronic data under Order VIII of the BNS.
• Review applications in Sessions Courts for warrant validity.
• Strategic coordination of forensic audits during police examinations.
• Negotiation of bail conditions that safeguard corporate documents.
• Filing of contempt applications against unlawful seizure actions.
• Advice on statutory compliance to pre‑empt evidentiary challenges.
• Representation in PHHC hearings on preservation of corporate evidence.

Mahajan & Keshav Law Firm

★★★★☆

Mahajan & Keshav Law Firm focuses on high‑stakes corporate criminal matters in Chandigarh, offering a systematic framework for immediate response to search warrants. Their practitioners are adept at invoking the provisions of Order II of the BNS within the first 12 hours of a seizure, thereby maximizing the probability of a temporary stay. They also provide detailed forensic preservation plans that align with the PHHC’s standards for electronic evidence handling.

• Rapid filing of temporary injunctions under Order II of the BNS.
• Comprehensive forensic preservation strategies for digital assets.
• Preparation of detailed inventory lists for seized physical records.
• Challenge of excessive seizure scope under Order XVIII of the BNS.
• Coordination with PHHC‑approved forensic specialists.
• Interim applications for protection of privileged corporate communications.
• Advisory on statutory reporting obligations during investigations.
• Appeals to higher courts on procedural irregularities.

Axis Law Office

★★★★☆

Axis Law Office brings a focused corporate criminal practice before the PHHC, with particular expertise in defending against unlawful seizure of financial statements and audit reports. Their litigation methodology emphasizes a step‑by‑step procedural checklist that aligns with the High Court’s ordering of sequential remedies, ensuring that each filing builds upon the prior protective measure without procedural lapses.

• Immediate objection to seizure of audited financial statements.
• Petitions for preservation of accounting software data.
• Application for sealed‑inventory orders under Order VIII of the BNS.
• Strategic use of bail‑condition clauses to limit police access.
• Preparation of forensic chain‑of‑custody documentation.
• Review of warrant validity in Sessions Court under Order XIV.
• Advocacy for exclusion of improperly seized records from trial.
• Coordination with corporate compliance officers during investigations.

Lalit Legal Consultancy

★★★★☆

Lalit Legal Consultancy’s team has deep experience with corporate entities facing criminal probes in Chandigarh. They specialise in filing meticulous petitions under Order XVIII of the BNS that contest the legality of the search itself, often resulting in the High Court nullifying the seizure and ordering the return of documents. Their approach integrates a thorough audit of corporate record‑keeping practices to pre‑empt evidentiary objections.

• Petitions challenging the legality of search warrants under Order XVIII of the BNS.
• Preparation of detailed corporate record‑keeping audits.
• Filing of applications for immediate return of seized documents.
• Advice on preservation of privileged communications.
• Coordination with PHHC‑approved forensic experts for data extraction.
• Strategic use of bail‑condition negotiations to protect evidence.
• Representation in PHHC hearings on evidentiary admissibility.
• Guidance on statutory disclosures during criminal investigations.

Advocate Preeti Goyal

★★★★☆

Advocate Preeti Goyal offers a personalized defence approach for corporations navigating search‑and‑seizure disputes before the PHHC. Her practice places particular emphasis on protecting corporate intellectual property that may be seized during raids. By swiftly invoking the interim injunction provisions of Order II of the BNS, she prevents the irreversible loss of proprietary data pending a full judicial review.

• Immediate injunctions to protect intellectual property assets.
• Petitions for forensic examination of seized digital media.
• Challenge of warrant overreach concerning trade secrets.
• Application for sealed‑inventory orders under Order VIII of the BNS.
• Preparation of detailed asset registers for court submission.
• Negotiation of bail terms that limit police access to IP.
• Coordination with technical experts on data integrity.
• Representation in PHHC proceedings on admissibility of seized IP.

Chawla Law Associates

★★★★☆

Chawla Law Associates are seasoned litigators before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, with a strong track record of protecting corporate documents during criminal investigations. Their strategic use of the High Court’s power under Order VIII of the BNS to order a sealed inventory has repeatedly resulted in the safe return of critical records after a forensic audit, preserving the corporation’s operational continuity.

• Securing sealed‑inventory orders under Order VIII of the BNS.
• Drafting precise objections to non‑specific search warrants.
• Petitioning for forensic audits of seized electronic devices.
• Interim injunctions to halt further seizure actions.
• Preparation of compliance reports for court review.
• Strategic bail‑condition negotiations protecting key documents.
• Coordination with forensic experts for chain‑of‑custody maintenance.
• Appeals to the PHHC against unlawful seizure orders.

Bhushan & Associates

★★★★☆

Bhushan & Associates focus on rapid-response criminal defence for corporations, ensuring that any seizure of records is met with an immediate legal counter‑measure. Their team skilfully leverages Order II of the BNS to secure a temporary stay, while simultaneously filing a substantive challenge under Order XVIII of the BNS to contest the warrant’s validity on factual grounds.

• Rapid filing of temporary injunctions under Order II of the BNS.
• Substantive challenges to warrant validity under Order XVIII.
• Petitions for forensic verification of seized data.
• Preparation of detailed inventory of seized physical documents.
• Coordination with corporate secretarial teams for records preservation.
• Negotiation of bail conditions restricting police access.
• Appeals to higher courts on procedural improprieties.
• Advisory on statutory compliance during ongoing investigations.

Advocate Sandeep Varma

★★★★☆

Advocate Sandeep Varma provides dedicated representation for corporations confronting aggressive search operations in Chandigarh. His practice places a premium on early engagement with the PHHC to obtain an order for the preservation of electronic evidence, a step he deems essential given the rapid degradation risk of digital data without proper forensic oversight.

• Early application for preservation orders for electronic evidence.
• Petitioning for court‑appointed forensic experts under BNSS amendments.
• Challenge of seizure scope exceeding statutory limits.
• Interim injunctions to prevent destruction of digital records.
• Preparation of digital forensics reports for court submission.
• Strategic use of bail‑condition clauses to limit data seizure.
• Coordination with IT security teams for data integrity.
• Representation before the PHHC on admissibility of seized digital assets.

Jyoti Law Chambers

★★★★☆

Jyoti Law Chambers maintains a robust corporate criminal practice before the PHHC, emphasizing the protection of statutory registers and board resolutions that are often targeted in raids. Their litigation strategy includes filing detailed petitions for sealed‑inventory orders and drafting precise objections to ensure that only documents explicitly listed in the warrant are apprehended.

• Objections to seizure of statutory registers not listed in warrants.
• Petitions for sealed‑inventory orders under Order VIII of the BNS.
• Interim injunctions to halt seizure of board resolutions.
• Preparation of comprehensive custody logs for seized items.
• Coordination with auditors for verification of financial records.
• Strategic bail‑condition negotiations protecting corporate governance documents.
• Challenge of over‑broad warrants under Order XVIII of the BNS.
• Representation in PHHC hearings on preservation of corporate governance evidence.

Poonam & Partners

★★★★☆

Poonam & Partners specialize in defending corporations against improper seizure of business contracts and commercial agreements. Their approach integrates a rigorous audit of the warrant’s language to pinpoint any overreach, followed by swift filing of injunctions under Order II of the BNS to shield contracts from being used as prosecutorial leverage.

• Immediate injunctions to protect commercial contracts.
• Petitions contesting warrant overreach concerning business agreements.
• Preparation of sealed‑inventory applications for contract bundles.
• Coordination with corporate legal teams for document identification.
• Strategic bail‑condition drafting to limit seizure of contractual paperwork.
• Forensic verification of electronic contract repositories.
• Challenge of unlawful seizure under Order XVIII of the BNS.
• Representation before PHHC on admissibility of seized commercial documents.

Raja Law Chambers

★★★★☆

Raja Law Chambers bring a disciplined procedural focus to corporate search‑and‑seizure disputes, guiding clients through the sequential filing of interim reliefs, forensic preservation orders, and substantive challenges. Their methodical approach aligns with the PHHC’s expectation that each procedural step be exhausted before advancing to the next, a strategy that has proved effective in securing the return of seized assets.

• Step‑wise filing of interim injunctions, preservation orders, and substantive challenges.
• Petitions for forensic audits of seized electronic devices.
• Preparation of detailed inventory lists for court approval.
• Objections to non‑specific warrant language.
• Strategic bail‑condition negotiations protecting key corporate records.
• Coordination with forensic experts for chain‑of‑custody compliance.
• Appeals to the PHHC on procedural violations.
• Advisory on statutory disclosure obligations during criminal probes.

Advocate Ritu Parikh

★★★★☆

Advocate Ritu Parikh has developed niche expertise in safeguarding corporate communications, such as internal emails and messaging archives, that are frequently seized during raids. By invoking Order VIII of the BNS for a sealed‑inventory of digital communications, she ensures that the PHHC can scrutinise the relevance of each item before allowing its admission.

• Petitions for sealed‑inventory of digital communications.
• Immediate injunctions to prevent deletion of email archives.
• Coordination with digital forensics experts for data extraction.
• Challenge of warrants that lack specificity for electronic communications.
• Strategic bail‑condition clauses safeguarding privileged correspondence.
• Preparation of forensic chain‑of‑custody documentation for electronic evidence.
• Representation before PHHC on admissibility of seized communications.
• Advisory on internal communication policies to mitigate future seizure risks.

Gulshan & Co. Legal Practice

★★★★☆

Gulshan & Co. Legal Practice concentrates on corporate tax records and GST filings that are often targeted in criminal investigations. Their counsel quickly moves to secure an interim injunction under Order II of the BNS to prevent the seizure of tax returns, while simultaneously preparing a forensic audit request to verify the integrity of the documents held by the police.

• Immediate injunctions to protect tax returns and GST filings.
• Petitions for forensic audit of seized tax documents.
• Challenge of over‑broad seizure orders under Order XVIII of the BNS.
• Preparation of sealed‑inventory applications for financial records.
• Coordination with tax advisors for document verification.
• Strategic bail‑condition negotiations limiting access to tax records.
• Representation in PHHC hearings on preservation of fiscal evidence.
• Advice on compliance reporting during ongoing investigations.

Kapoor, Singh & Partners

★★★★☆

Kapoor, Singh & Partners bring a comprehensive corporate criminal defence portfolio before the PHHC, with a particular focus on protecting shareholders’ agreements and capital‑structure documents. Their procedural strategy hinges on filing a petition under Order VIII of the BNS to place seized documents in a sealed inventory, thereby forestalling any premature disclosure.

• Petitions for sealed‑inventory of shareholders’ agreements.
• Immediate injunctions to halt seizure of capital‑structure documents.
• Challenge of warrant scope exceeding statutory limits.
• Forensic verification of electronic shareholder registers.
• Strategic bail‑condition drafting to protect sensitive corporate governance records.
• Preparation of detailed custody logs for seized items.
• Representation before the PHHC on admissibility of seized documents.
• Advisory on corporate governance best practices to mitigate seizure risks.

Kartik & Co. Legal

★★★★☆

Kartik & Co. Legal excels in rapid intervention for corporations faced with search‑and‑seizure orders in Chandigarh. Their team is adept at invoking Order II of the BNS within the critical first 12 hours, securing a temporary stay that preserves the status quo while a full legal challenge under Order XVIII of the BNS is prepared.

• Rapid filing of temporary injunctions under Order II of the BNS.
• Substantive challenges to warrant validity under Order XVIII.
• Petitions for forensic preservation of seized electronic files.
• Preparation of sealed‑inventory applications for physical records.
• Strategic bail‑condition negotiations limiting police access.
• Coordination with forensic experts for data integrity assurance.
• Representation in PHHC hearings on procedural compliance.
• Advisory on internal controls to prevent future seizure complications.

Menon & Co. Legal Services

★★★★☆

Menon & Co. Legal Services have built a reputation for defending corporations against aggressive seizure of production data and manufacturing process records. Their litigation often involves an immediate injunction under Order II of the BNS, followed by a petition for a sealed inventory to ensure that any examination of the data is conducted under court supervision.

• Immediate injunctions to protect production and process records.
• Petitions for sealed‑inventory of manufacturing data.
• Challenge of over‑broad warrants under Order XVIII of the BNS.
• Coordination with industry experts for forensic examination.
• Strategic bail‑condition clauses limiting access to proprietary data.
• Preparation of detailed inventory and custody logs.
• Representation before the PHHC on admissibility of seized technical data.
• Advisory on safeguarding intellectual property during investigations.

Joshi & Associates Legal

★★★★☆

Joshi & Associates Legal focus on protecting corporate litigation files and case histories that may be targeted in raids. Their approach emphasizes a swift injunction under Order II of the BNS to prevent the removal of such files, combined with a request for a court‑ordered forensic audit to verify the authenticity of any documents the police retain.

• Immediate injunctions to protect litigation files and case histories.
• Petitions for forensic audit of seized legal documents.
• Challenge of warrant overreach concerning case files.
• Preparation of sealed‑inventory applications for legal records.
• Strategic bail‑condition drafting to secure privileged documents.
• Coordination with senior counsel for document verification.
• Representation before PHHC on preservation of legal evidence.
• Advisory on maintaining secure repositories for litigation documents.

Nair & Associates

★★★★☆

Nair & Associates specialize in defending corporations against seizure of human‑resource records, including employee files and payroll data. Their litigation strategy involves a rapid injunction under Order II of the BNS to halt seizure, followed by a petition for a sealed‑inventory that ensures any examination of personal data complies with privacy standards recognized by the PHHC.

• Immediate injunctions to protect employee files and payroll records.
• Petitions for sealed‑inventory of HR documentation.
• Challenge of unlawful seizure of personal data under Order XVIII of the BNS.
• Coordination with privacy experts for data protection compliance.
• Strategic bail‑condition clauses limiting access to sensitive employee information.
• Preparation of detailed custody logs for HR records.
• Representation before PHHC on admissibility of seized personnel data.
• Advisory on privacy‑compliant record‑keeping practices.

Chatterjee Law Associates

★★★★☆

Chatterjee Law Associates provide seasoned representation for corporations whose environmental compliance records are seized during investigations. Their legal actions prioritize an interim injunction under Order II of the BNS, followed by a petition for a forensic audit to verify the authenticity of environmental reports held by the authorities.

• Immediate injunctions to protect environmental compliance records.
• Petitions for forensic verification of seized environmental reports.
• Challenge of over‑broad warrants targeting unrelated documents.
• Preparation of sealed‑inventory applications for environmental data.
• Strategic bail‑condition negotiations limiting police access to compliance files.
• Coordination with environmental experts for data integrity.
• Representation before PHHC on admissibility of seized environmental evidence.
• Advisory on maintaining robust environmental documentation to deter seizure.

Practical Guidance: Timing, Documentation, and Strategic Steps for Challenging Search and Seizure

Success in contesting a search and seizure hinges on acting within strict temporal boundaries. Upon receipt of the warrant, the corporate representative must request a copy, compare it against the corporate records list, and note any divergence. Within **12 hours**, an interim injunction petition under Order II of the BNS should be filed, highlighting the over‑breadth and the immediate risk of loss of essential documents. The petition must attach a copy of the warrant, a preliminary inventory of the seized items, and a declaration of the corporate entity’s right to a fair trial.

Simultaneously, a **sealed‑inventory application** under Order VIII of the BNS should be prepared. This application requires a detailed description of each category of seized material—physical books, electronic storage devices, cloud‑based repositories—and a request that the court appoint a forensic expert to oversee any examination. The inventory must be organized by document type, date, and relevance, enabling the court to assess proportionality.

For electronic seizures, the law mandates the involvement of a court‑appointed forensic expert. The corporation must submit a **forensic preservation request** citing the latest amendment to the BNSS that obliges the police to preserve the integrity of digital evidence. The request should specify the hardware, software, and encryption methods used by the corporation, and propose a timeline for forensic analysis that does not unduly delay business operations.

After securing interim protection, the next procedural layer is a **substantive challenge under Order XVIII of the BNS**. This petition attacks the underlying validity of the warrant by arguing lack of factual basis, improper jurisdiction, or failure to meet specificity requirements. Evidence for this stage includes internal audit reports, board minutes establishing the existence or non‑existence of the alleged contravention, and expert testimony on the irrelevance of the seized materials to the alleged offence.

Throughout the process, meticulous documentation is indispensable. A **custody log** should be maintained, tracking each seized item’s condition, the date of seizure, the officer in charge, and any chain‑of‑custody breaches. This log becomes a cornerstone of the court’s assessment of potential prejudice caused by the seizure. Additionally, the corporation should preserve **all communications with law‑enforcement agencies**, including emails, meeting minutes, and written objections, as these demonstrate good‑faith compliance and underscore any procedural irregularities.

Strategic coordination with forensic experts, tax advisors, and internal compliance officers is essential. Their expert inputs strengthen the petition’s factual matrix, demonstrating that the seized records are either privileged, irrelevant, or subject to statutory confidentiality. Finally, counsel must be prepared for possible **appeals** if the PHHC dismisses the interim relief. The appeal must be lodged promptly, within the timeframe prescribed by the High Court’s rules, and must reiterate the urgency and the irreversible harm that continued seizure would inflict on the corporation’s operations and legal position.