MANOHAR Vs. T R MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the first appellant before us sought to refer to the notes of inspection available with him while deposing, regarding the contents of the several documents of which he had taken inspection. Those documents were not available for being produced in the court, in a proceeding under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the act' for short). The learned company judge did not permit the appellant to refer to the notes made by the first appellant. This disallowance is challenged in appeal o.s.a. 7 of 1992. Earlier the appellants had sought to produce those notes as evidence in their case. The learned company judge held that the notes were not true copies of the documents and therefore these notes cannot be availed of to prove the contents of the originals. O.s.a. 13 of 1992 is against the said order. The appeals are under Section 483 of the Companies Act. 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 these orders and consequently the appeals may not be maintainable. Elaborate arguments were addressed by the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents on this aspect.

(2.) the question before us is, therefore, whether these appeals are maintainable.

(3.) 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.