TMI Blog1993 (4) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 992 is against the said order. The appeals are under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956. When the appeals came up for admission we pointed out that the orders under appeal are only orders made on procedural matters and the right of the parties are not affected by those orders and consequently the appeals may not be maintainable. Elaborate arguments were addressed by learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents on this aspect. The question before us is, therefore, whether these appeals are maintainable. Under section 483, appeals lie from "any order made or decision given in the matter of winding up of a company". The contention of the appellant is that, this creates a wide and broad appellate jurisdiction, and every kind of judicial order could be challenged in appeal. In Shankarlal Aggarwala v. Shankarlal Poddar [1965] 35 Comp. Cas. 1 ; AIR 1965 SC 507, a similar provision under the earlier Companies Act, 1913, came up for consideration. The learned company judge had confirmed a sale of assets held by the official liquidator; this order was reversed by the Division Bench in an appeal under section 202 of the old Act. An order confirming the sale was held to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... immediately. It is not a mere procedural matter and it cannot be equated to an order adjourning a case in the exercise of the court's ordinary jurisdiction; an order under section 170 (now section 443) is a statutory order. In Shankarlal Aggarwala v. Shankarlal Poddar [1965] 35 Comp. Cas. 1 ; AIR 1965 SC 507, at page 513, the Supreme Court, while referring to the decision of Chagla C. J., said that such an order or decision referred in old section 202 itself indicates that the order or decision was not merely procedural in character but one which affected the rights of parties. At page 514, the Supreme Court held (at page 13 of 35 Comp Cas): "We also agree with the learned judges of the Bombay High Court that the words 'order or decision' occurring in the first part of section 202, though wide, would exclude merely procedural orders or those which do not affect the rights or liabilities of parties." Therefore, it is quite clear that the order or decision referred to in the present section 483, though wide, would exclude merely procedural orders or those which do not affect the rights or liabilities of parties. The question, therefore, is whether the orders under appeal be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nkarlal Aggarwala's case [1965] 35 Comp. Cas. 1 , referred to already by us above. In Central Bank of India's case, AIR 1967 SC 799, it was pointed out that orders regarding the summoning of witnesses, discovery, production and inspection of documents, issue of a commission, inspection of premises, fixing a date of hearing and the admissibility of a document or the relevancy of a question are all interlocutory orders and are steps taken towards final adjudication and they regulate the procedure only; they do not affect any right or liability of the parties. In fact if any of those orders materially affect the rights and liabilities by virtue of the ultimate order of the court, the validity of those interlocutory orders could be challenged later in the appeal against the final order. The observations of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India's case, AIR 1967 SC 799, would equally govern the relevant words used in section 483 of the Companies Act, in fact Central Bank of India's case, AIR 1967 SC 799, refers to the earlier Shankarlal Aggarwal's case [1965] 35 Comp. Cas. 1. Mr. Udaya Holla relied on a Bench decision of this court in Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-opera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , such an order would affect the right of a party to the suit to adduce evidence. If a witness is entitled to be examined on commission and the court refuses to issue a commission to record the evidence of a witness, not only the right of a party to the suit is affected, the right of a witness to be examined on commission is affected." The above observations may be compared with the observations of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India's case, AIR 1967 SC 799, and theoretically it is difficult to reconcile the observations of the Bench of this court with those of the Supreme Court. However, it is unnecessary for us to go into the said aspect because the observations of this court quoted above could be distinguished for the present on the ground that the Division Bench of this court was concerned with the scope of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Bant Singh Gill v. Shanti Devi, AIR 1967 SC 1360, again the relevant provision of the Delhi Rent Control Act came up for consideration. The trial court had held in the said case that the suit had not abated. The Supreme Court held that it was an interlocutory order and cannot be considered as an appealable order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f so, under section 483, the aggrieved person can challenge the said order immediately. This argument actually is an argument to overcome the observations of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India's case, AIR 1967 SC 799. An interlocutory order may not ultimately affect the rights of the parties, in the sense that the final order may go in his favour. In such a situation it is immaterial as to what happened at the interlocutory stage. It is in that sense it has to be understood that the interlocutory order cannot be challenged unless it affects the rights and liabilities of the parties. A document may be wrongly admitted by the court overruling the objections, the objector may be temporarily aggrieved by this order. But ultimately, it may so happen that the objector may succeed in the litigation, if so, it is entirely immaterial whether his earlier objection was upheld or overruled. No doubt an interlocutory order governing the procedural matters may sometimes create procedural difficulties to a party, but the purpose of an appeal is not to set right every procedural defect. The course of a litigation should normally proceed unhampered. If at every stage the appellate court h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
