Appeals Dismissed for Procedural Orders; Emphasizes Impact on Parties' Rights

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeals, ruling that they were not maintainable under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court held that the orders under appeal were procedural and did not impact the rights or liabilities of the parties. It was emphasized that procedural orders could be challenged in an appeal against the final order if they significantly affected the parties' rights and liabilities.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appeals under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, are maintainable.
2. Whether the orders under appeal are merely procedural and whether they affect the rights of the parties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Appeals under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956:
The primary question before the court was whether the appeals under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, are maintainable. The appellants contended that section 483 creates a broad appellate jurisdiction allowing appeals from any judicial order. This argument was supported by referring to the Supreme Court decision in *Shankarlal Aggarwala v. Shankarlal Poddar* [1965] 35 Comp. Cas. 1; AIR 1965 SC 507, where an order confirming the sale of assets was held to be appealable. The Supreme Court had observed that the essence of a judicial proceeding involves discretion exercised on objective considerations, thus making it a judicial decision. The appellants argued that orders refusing to admit documents in evidence or disallowing reference to notes during testimony are discretionary judicial orders and should be appealable.

2. Procedural Nature of Orders and Impact on Rights of Parties:
The court examined whether the orders under appeal were merely procedural and whether they affected the rights of the parties. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in *Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Gokal Chand*, AIR 1967 SC 799, the court noted that not all interlocutory orders are appealable. The Supreme Court had held that orders which are merely procedural and do not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties are not appealable. The court emphasized that procedural orders, such as those regarding the summoning of witnesses, discovery, production and inspection of documents, and admissibility of documents, are steps towards final adjudication and do not affect any right or liability of the parties. Such orders can be challenged in an appeal against the final order if they materially affect the rights and liabilities of the parties.

The court also discussed the decision in *Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. v. C. Srinivasa Raju*, ILR 1990 Kar 2451, where it was observed that an interlocutory order can be considered a 'case decided' if it adjudicates some right or obligation of the parties. However, the court distinguished this case on the ground that it dealt with the scope of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In *Bant Singh Gill v. Shanti Devi*, AIR 1967 SC 1360, the Supreme Court held that an interlocutory order regarding the abatement of a suit was not immediately appealable and could be considered in an appeal from the final order. The court reiterated that the rights and liabilities of parties are normally decided by the final order, and interlocutory orders rarely affect these rights.

The court concluded that the appeals were not maintainable as the orders under appeal were procedural and did not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties. The court dismissed the appeals without expressing any opinion on the merits of the questions raised.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeals, holding that the orders under appeal were procedural and did not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties, making the appeals non-maintainable under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court emphasized that procedural orders can be challenged in an appeal against the final order if they materially affect the rights and liabilities of the parties.

---