Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an appeal under section 483 of the Companies Act lay against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal under section 10F of the Companies Act, despite section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure and in the light of section 4(1) of that Code.
Analysis: The appeal involved the interaction between the bar on further appeals introduced by section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure and the saving language in section 4(1) of the same Code. The Court noted that section 483 of the Companies Act had been construed by the Supreme Court as conferring a substantive right of appeal in matters falling within winding up jurisdiction, including orders passed in proceedings under sections 397 and 398 read with section 10F. It held that section 100A did not expressly or specifically curtail that special statutory right, and that a general restriction on further appeals could not be read as repealing or overriding a special appellate remedy preserved by section 4(1). The Court also distinguished authorities dealing with statutes that did not contain a specific second appeal provision.
Conclusion: The objection to maintainability failed, and the appeal was held maintainable in favour of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: A special statutory right of appeal is not abrogated by a general bar on further appeals unless the later provision clearly and specifically overrides that special remedy.