Question of law limits Section 10F appeals; mixed questions permit preliminary trial and tribunal may hear interim relief.

An appeal under Section 10F lies only on a pure question of law; where maintainability raises mixed questions of law and fact, Section 10F appellate jurisdiction does not automatically arise, and here the maintainability challenge involved factual issues of shareholding and succession. Order XIV, Rule 2 CPC permits trial of preliminary issues when they are pure questions of law, but mixed questions require case-specific assessment; given complete pleadings and affidavits and voluminous material, the maintainability issue could properly be tried first and the High Court did not err in so directing. However, a blanket restraint preventing the tribunal from entertaining interim applications was excessive and is set aside; the tribunal may consider interim relief to preserve rights.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act lies only on a question of law; (ii) Whether the question of maintainability should be tried as a preliminary issue or decided with the main petition; (iii) Whether the High Court order restraining the Company Law Board from entertaining interim applications pending decision on maintainability requires interference.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 lies only on a question of law.

Analysis: Section 10F permits appeal to the High Court on questions of law arising out of Company Law Board orders. The maintainability objection in this case raised entitlement and factual issues concerning shareholding and succession, which involve mixed questions of law and fact rather than a pure question of law. The Company Law Board's decision to treat maintainability along with other issues did not present a pure question of law for automatic appellate jurisdiction under Section 10F.

Conclusion: The question as framed in this case does not present a pure question of law for Section 10F appeal; the issue involves mixed questions of law and fact.

Issue (ii): Whether the question of maintainability should be tried as a preliminary issue.

Analysis: Order XIV, Rule 2 CPC permits trial of preliminary issues when they are pure questions of law; however where mixed questions arise the decision depends on case-specific facts. Considerations include the volume and complexity of pleadings, potential prejudice and delay if full trial proceeds and later petition held non-maintainable, and availability of affidavits and pleadings to decide maintainability without full trial. In the present case pleadings and affidavits on maintainability were complete and the pleadings were voluminous; the learned single judge directed maintainability to be tried as a preliminary issue and the Board had posted the matter for that hearing.

Conclusion: In the facts and circumstances of this case the maintainability issue may properly be tried as a preliminary issue; the High Court did not err in upholding that approach.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court order restraining the Company Law Board from entertaining interim applications pending decision on maintainability requires interference.

Analysis: The Company Law Board retains jurisdiction to entertain interim applications necessary to preserve the subject-matter and rights of parties pending final determination; interlocutory orders serve to preserve status quo and prevent proceedings becoming infructuous. A blanket restraint on the Board's power to consider interim applications pending maintainability adjudication would impede necessary preservation measures. The High Court's direction preventing the Board from considering interim applications was therefore excessive; it is open to the Board to exercise discretion judicially to grant or refuse interim relief.

Conclusion: The part of the order restraining the Company Law Board from entertaining or considering interim applications pending decision on maintainability is set aside; the Board is at liberty to entertain and consider interim applications in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed in part: the direction barring the Company Law Board from entertaining interim applications is set aside and the Board is permitted to consider such applications; in other respects the single judge's order is maintained and the Company Law Board is directed to decide maintainability by the end of March, 1994.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an objection to maintainability involves mixed questions of law and fact, the tribunal or court may, based on case-specific considerations including the volume of issues, available pleadings and risk of prejudice or delay, order trial of maintainability as a preliminary issue; however a court may not impose a blanket restraint preventing the tribunal from entertaining necessary interim applications to preserve the subject-matter.

---