Appealability of inspection refusal in winding-up proceedings turns on effect on creditor rights and relevance to the dispute.

An order in winding-up proceedings refusing inspection and production of documents is appealable where it affects the petitioning creditor's ability to prosecute the case and is not merely procedural. The court held that the wide phrase "any order made, or decision given, in the matter of the winding up" covered the refusal here, so the preliminary objection to maintainability failed. It also held that documents concerning the letter of credit, receipt of goods in India, and accounts showing payments were directly relevant to the guarantee dispute and should have been produced for inspection. The challenge succeeded to that extent, and the impugned order was set aside accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 lay against the order refusing inspection and production of documents in a winding-up petition. (ii) Whether the documents sought were relevant and should have been made available for inspection.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 lay against the order refusing inspection and production of documents in a winding-up petition.

Analysis: The expression "any order made, or decision given, in the matter of the winding up" is wide, though it excludes merely procedural orders that do not affect rights or liabilities. An order passed after institution of a winding-up petition is in the matter of winding up. Where refusal of inspection and production of documents has the potential to affect the petitioning creditor's ability to prosecute the winding-up case and may, in practical effect, foreclose the claim, the order is not a mere procedural step.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable and the preliminary objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the documents sought were relevant and should have been made available for inspection.

Analysis: The appellant sought documents showing the letter of credit, receipts of goods in India, and the company's accounts reflecting payments to LGV, to test the flow of goods and payments underlying the guarantee dispute. These documents bore directly on whether the respondent-company had received the goods, whether payment had been made to LGV, and whether liability under the undertaking had arisen. A document relating to the wildlife permission was not pressed.

Conclusion: The first three categories of documents were relevant and inspection should have been granted.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside to the extent challenged, the application for inspection was allowed for the relevant documents, and the appeal succeeded in part as to the relief granted.

Ratio Decidendi: An order in winding-up proceedings refusing inspection and production of documents is appealable under section 483 when it affects the rights of the petitioning creditor to prosecute the case and the documents are shown to be directly relevant to the controversy.

---