(1.) This company appeal has been preferred questioning the correctness of the order dated 06.01.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Company Petition No. 8 of 2013 filed by M/s Jupiter Dyechem Private Limited through it's authorised signatory for winding up of the appellant no. 1 company. The Company Petition has been entertained and for the first time by the impugned order, after four years of filing of the Company Petition, an interim arrangement has been made restraining the appellant no. 1 from alienating or transferring the assets of the Company till the next date of listing. The appeal has been filed on the ground that such an interim order could not have been passed without even considering the objections filed in the counter affidavit and also the facts that would establish that such an interim order in the background of the litigation was unjustified.
(2.) It was urged by Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant that even assuming for the sake of argument that an order could have been passed, the same ought to have been done after consideration of the objections that had already been filed and were on record and also after studying the impact of the earlier orders through judicial intervention passed from time to time in this respect. He, therefore, submits that the interim order deserves to be set aside for which this appeal has been filed under the provisions of Sec. 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, that still survives after promulgation of the Companies Act, 2013.
(3.) Opposing the appeal, Sri Sudeep Seth has urged that the appeal is not maintainable keeping in view the provisions as pointed out by him and the notifications relied upon contending that the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the appeal being no longer specifically available, should be treated to have been impliedly taken away in view of the various provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and the notifications issued in this regard from time to time.