Review remedy required to alter an interim administrator order; inherent powers cannot bypass the Civil Procedure Code procedure.

A request to discharge an interim administrator and restore the board was treated as a substantive attempt to revisit an earlier interlocutory order. The court's reasoning was that such relief could be pursued only through review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, not by invoking inherent powers under Section 151 CPC or Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, because a specific procedural remedy existed. It also noted that the application was not maintainable before a judge who was not part of the bench that made the earlier appellate order. The disputed documents were not considered a safe basis for interference at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application seeking discharge of the interim administrator and restoration of the board could be entertained under the court's inherent powers or whether the relief sought amounted to a review falling within Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; and whether the application was maintainable before a judge who was not a member of the Bench that decided the earlier appeal.

Analysis: The relief, though framed as a request for modification of the interim arrangement, in substance sought reconsideration of the earlier order appointing the interim administrator. The Court held that such alteration could be granted only by invoking the review power under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and not under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, because a specific remedy existed in the Code. The Court further held that, since the order sought to be reviewed had been made in appeal by a Bench of which the present Judge was not a member, the application was not maintainable before him. The disputed documents relied upon for review were not treated as a safe basis for interference at that stage, especially when the main company petition was already under trial.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable and no interference with the existing interim administrative arrangement was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The existing appointment of the interim administrator remained undisturbed, and the company application was rejected for want of maintainability and merit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a party seeks to alter a subsisting interlocutory arrangement on the basis of alleged factual errors or new material, the proper remedy is review under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and inherent powers cannot be used to bypass that specific procedure.

---