9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvenience) is a company incorporated on July 30, 1082 M.E., under the Cochin Regulation (IV of 1080 M.E). The main object of the Sanghom is to propagate Christianity among the non-Christians, spread gospels and to uplift the spiritual life of Christians. The Sanghom had 19 members. The Sanghom has no share capital and the liability of the members is limited to the extent of their subscription. Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 herein filed a company petition alleging oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the Sanghom. The Sanghom has four items of properties including an item of property known as "Sadhusala Parambu". There is also a school under the management of this Sanghom. The main allegation against the management of the Sanghom was tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Companies Act, 1956, and that there were no just and equitable grounds to appoint an administrator-cum-receiver for the company. The respondents' counsel supported the order and it was also contended that the appeal filed against the order is not maintainable. The first question that would arise for consideration is whether an appeal would lie before the Division Bench of this court against the order passed by a single judge. It was urged on behalf of the appellants that an appeal against an order passed under section 403 of the Companies Act (Act 1 of 1956) appointing the receiver would lie under section 483 of the Act. Section 483 of the Companies Act reads as follows : "483. Appeals from orders.--Appeals from any order made, or deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Comp. Cas. 1 (SC); AIR 1965 SC 507. The Supreme Court held (at page 8 of 35 Comp. Cas.): "It is perhaps not possible to formulate a definition which would satisfactorily distinguish, in this context, between an administrative order and a judicial order. That the power is entrusted to or wielded by a person who functions as a court is not decisive of the question whether the act or decision is administrative or judicial. But we conceive that an administrative order would be one which is directed to the regulation or supervision of matters as distinguished from an order which decides the rights of parties or confers or refuses to confer rights to property which are the subject of adjudication before the court. One of the tests would be wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the application for appointment of a receiver as also for interim injunction. The plaintiff-appellant filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, which dismissed the appeal as being non-maintainable on the ground that the impugned order of the single judge was not a judgment as contemplated by clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court. The court held that every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned would be judgments. The court also held that an interlocutory order to be a judgment must contain the traits and trappings of finality eit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 5(1) of the High Court Act, 1958 (Kerala). The court held that procedural orders and interlocutory orders will not come within the sweep of section 5(1) of the High Court Act. The above decision has no application to the instant case because the appeal has been preferred under section 483 of the Companies Act and not exclusively under section 5(1) of the High Court Act. Moreover, the decision in State oj Kerala v. Krishnankutiy [1985] KLT 201 deals with an order passed in an interlocutory application by the single judge exercising his "special original jurisdiction "conferred under article 226 of the Constitution, whereas the impugned order has been passed by the learned single judge under section 403 of the Companies Act which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act. The right to prefer such appeals has been expressly conferred by section 5 of that Act. Hence the appeal is competent". Therefore, we hold that there is no merit in the objection raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the appeal. The next point urged by the appellants' counsel was that the learned single judge has not given reasons for the appointment of an administrator-cum-receiver and, therefore, the order was bad in the eye of law. It was further contended that the company was managed by duly elected office-bearers of the company and that they are entitled to continue in office. Though the petitioners therein have contended that there was oppression and mismanagement, they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
