1992 (11) TMI 246 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
- Appealability of an order admitting a company petition under section 483 of the Companies Act.
- Interpretation of rule 96 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 regarding admission of the petition and directions for advertisement.
- Consideration of the impact of advertisement on a company's reputation.
- Understanding of the term "any order" in section 483 of the Companies Act.
- Comparison with relevant Supreme Court judgments on procedural orders and appealability.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the issue of appealability of an order admitting a company petition under section 483 of the Companies Act. The appellant contested the appealability of the order based on the interpretation of rule 96 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, which outlines the procedure for admission of the petition and directions for advertisement. The rule specifies that the judge may direct notice to be given to the company before deciding on the advertisement of the petition. The court highlighted that the admission of a petition does not immediately impact the company; rather, it is the advertisement that can adversely affect the company's reputation by exposing its name to the public.

Moreover, the judgment delves into the interpretation of the term "any order" in section 483 of the Companies Act, emphasizing that an order must affect the right of the party invoking appellate jurisdiction for it to be appealable. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Gokul Chand, the court elucidated that procedural orders that do not impact rights or liabilities of parties are not typically appealable to prevent endless expenses and delays in the legal process. The court applied this principle to the context of admitting a company petition, considering it as a procedural matter governing the process post-admission.

Furthermore, the judgment referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in National Conduits (P.) Ltd. v. S. S. Arora to underscore that even after admission, a company can request the court not to advertise the petition, aligning with the principle of preventing abuse of court processes. The court emphasized the importance of allowing the company to present relevant materials to support its stance on advertisement, ensuring a fair opportunity for the company to protect its reputation. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the order admitting the company petition and highlighting the company's ability to contest the advertisement of the petition before the court.