Section 633(2) anticipatory relief remains available despite criminal proceedings; maintainability objection can itself be appealable as judgment.

An order dismissing a preliminary objection to maintainability can qualify as a judgment under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent when it finally affects a substantive right in pending proceedings, so the appeal was maintainable. Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as an independent anticipatory jurisdiction to grant relief where proceedings are apprehended, while Section 633(1) applies to relief in pending proceedings. The commencement of criminal proceedings did not by itself bar a petition under Section 633(2), so the company petition was maintainable and the maintainability objection was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order dismissing the preliminary objection to maintainability was a judgment appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent; (ii) Whether relief under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was unavailable once criminal proceedings had already been initiated and whether the company petition under Section 633 was maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the order dismissing the preliminary objection to maintainability was a judgment appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

Analysis: An order acquires the character of a judgment when it finally determines a valuable and substantive right of a party, even in ancillary proceedings. The order under challenge decided the maintainability objection raised by the appellant and materially affected its rights in the pending company petition.

Conclusion: The order was held to be a judgment and the appeal was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether relief under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was unavailable once criminal proceedings had already been initiated and whether the company petition under Section 633 was maintainable.

Analysis: Section 633(1) empowers the court hearing pending proceedings to relieve an officer who has acted honestly and reasonably and ought fairly to be excused. Section 633(2) confers an additional, anticipatory power on the High Court where proceedings are apprehended. The two sub-sections operate in different spheres, and the filing or pendency of criminal proceedings does not by itself extinguish the High Court's power to entertain a petition under Section 633(2). The petitioners were entitled to seek such relief, and the maintainability objection was rightly rejected.

Conclusion: The company petition was held to be maintainable and Section 633(2) relief was not barred merely because proceedings had already commenced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the impugned order was affirmed, and the appellant was left free to contest the main company petition on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 confers an independent anticipatory jurisdiction on the High Court to grant relief from liability in apprehended proceedings, while Section 633(1) governs relief in proceedings already pending before the competent court.

---