2003 (10) TMI 704 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Maintainability of the appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act in light of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Interpretation of Section 483 of the Companies Act concerning appeals against orders made under Sections 397 and 398.
3. The impact of Section 4(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the maintainability of appeals under special laws.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Appeal:

The core issue in this case was whether an appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act was maintainable following the introduction of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which restricts further appeals. The respondents argued that Section 100A, effective from 1st July 2002, abolished further appeals in certain cases, including those from decisions made by a Single Judge under Section 10F of the Companies Act. They referenced a Division Bench decision, which held that no further appeal was maintainable unless expressly provided by a special statute. The court had to consider whether the appeal from a Single Judge's decision under Section 10F to a Division Bench was permissible under Section 483, despite the limitations imposed by Section 100A.

2. Interpretation of Section 483 of the Companies Act:

The appellants contended that Section 483 of the Companies Act allowed for an appeal from an order made by a court in the matter of winding up of a company, which included orders under Sections 397 and 398. They argued that the order of a Single Judge under these sections was appealable to a Division Bench. The court examined the legislative intent and previous judgments, including the Apex Court's decision in Shankarlal Aggarwal v. Shankarlal Poddar, which supported the view that orders under Sections 397 and 398 were in the matter of winding up and thus appealable under Section 483.

3. Impact of Section 4(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure:

Section 4(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure states that in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in the Code shall limit or affect any special or local law. The court had to determine whether this provision preserved the right of appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, despite the restrictions of Section 100A. The appellants argued that Section 4(1) protected the substantive right of appeal provided by special laws like the Companies Act. The court noted that Section 100A did not explicitly repeal or alter the special provisions of the Companies Act, and thus, the appeal under Section 483 should be maintainable.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the appeal was maintainable, as Section 483 of the Companies Act provided a substantive right of appeal that was not overridden by Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court emphasized that special laws like the Companies Act, which confer specific rights of appeal, are not indirectly repealed by general provisions unless there is a clear legislative intent to do so. Consequently, the appeal was admitted, and the court recognized the presence of arguable points on the merits of the appeal. The matter was expedited for early hearing due to the important questions of law involved.