Appealability in winding-up proceedings turns on whether the order finally determines rights; provisional adjournment orders are not appealable.

An order in winding-up proceedings is appealable only if it finally determines the rights of the parties. Where the Company Judge merely adjourns the matter, postpones any final winding-up order, or records interim findings without conclusively disposing of the application, the controversy remains open and the order is not a judgment for appellate purposes. On that basis, the preliminary objection to maintainability was upheld and the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal lay against the order passed in winding up proceedings when the learned Company Judge had not made a final winding-up order and had only adjourned the matter for possible settlement.

Analysis: An appeal under the relevant appellate provisions lies only from an order or judgment that finally determines the rights of the parties. The impugned order did not finally dispose of the winding-up application: the learned Judge merely postponed the passing of a final order and recorded findings on certain points without making a winding-up order. In such a situation, the rights of the parties were not concluded, and the order could not be treated as an appealable judgment. The Court therefore upheld the preliminary objection as to maintainability.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: Only a final decision in the winding-up matter could support an appeal, and the order under challenge was merely a provisional or adjournment order that did not finally determine the controversy.

Ratio Decidendi: An order in winding-up proceedings is appealable only when it finally determines the rights of the parties; a mere adjournment or provisional order that leaves the matter open is not a judgment for purposes of appeal.

---