9911796707
TMI Blog1929 (6) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... however, prayed to be allowed to amend the application so as to add an allegation of fraud. 3. The learned District Judge allowed the amendment and the two directors, thereupon, preferred separate appeals to this Court attacking the order allowing the amendment of the application. 4. On these appeals coming up before Johnstone, J., objection was taken to their competency by the liquidator who placed reliance on Santi Lal v. Indian Exchange Bank [1916] 38 All. 537, which was followed by Zafar Ali, J. in Charan Das etc v. Amritsar National Bank A.I.R. 1927, Lah. 282. For the appellants C.M. DeSouza v. S.B. Billimoria A.I.R. 1926 Lah. 246 was referred to. 5. Johnstone, J., considered that the question involved should be decided by a Divisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded that the language of Section 202 was broad enough to cover appeals against all orders passed "in the matter of the winding up of a company" except purely interlocutory or ministerial orders, and that the words "in the same manner and subject to the same conditions etc." related only to, matters of form i.e., necessary copies, limitation etc. 9. Reference was made to Section 104 and Order 43, Civil P.C. and it was pointed out that practically no order could be passed by a Liquidation Court that could fairly fall within the provisions of this section and order. 10. It was further urged that there are a large number of ordered that may be passed under the Companies Act which are not in the contemplation of the Civil P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s referred to above. 14. In C. M De Souza v. S.B. Billimoria A.I.R. 1926 Lah. 246 Jai Lal, J. and I held that the phraseology of Section 202 was wide enough to admit of an appeal against an order refusing inspection and after giving due weight to the arguments advanced at the Bar I am still of opinion that the language of Section 202 is wide enough to cover appeals against all orders made in the matter of the winding up of a company provided such an order finally decides a dispute between the parties or deprives the appellant of a substantial and important right and is not a mere formal or interlocutory order. 15. Nor do I think that Santi Lal v. Indian Exchange Bank [1916] 38 All. 537 is in conflict with that view when the facts of that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
