Interlocutory orders in company proceedings are rarely appealable where they only regulate pleadings or grant prima facie interim protection.

An interlocutory order regulating pleadings by permitting adoption of a counter affidavit and directing a rejoinder was treated as a routine procedural step within the tribunal's control of its proceedings and, because it did not determine substantive rights, was not liable to appellate interference. An interim stay granted in pending company proceedings was also upheld as a permissible interim arrangement based on prima facie satisfaction rather than a detailed merits determination. Alleged non-service and the absence of a prior request to vacate the stay did not vitiate the order where the appellants had participated on merits. The proper course was to seek vacation of the interim protection before the tribunal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the interlocutory order permitting adoption of counter affidavit and directing filing of rejoinder was liable to appellate interference. (ii) Whether the interim stay order passed in the company petition was vitiated for want of detailed reasons, alleged non-service of the application, or for failure to first seek vacation of stay.

Issue (i): Whether the interlocutory order permitting adoption of counter affidavit and directing filing of rejoinder was liable to appellate interference.

Analysis: The order merely regulated exchange of pleadings and fixed the matter for further hearing. It did not determine any substantive right of the parties and was a routine procedural order within the tribunal's control of its own proceedings.

Conclusion: The order was not interferable in appeal and the challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the interim stay order passed in the company petition was vitiated for want of detailed reasons, alleged non-service of the application, or for failure to first seek vacation of stay.

Analysis: The interim order was passed in exercise of the tribunal's interlocutory and inherent powers under the applicable procedural rules. For an interim arrangement, only prima facie satisfaction was required and not an elaborate judgment on merits. The appellants had participated in the proceedings, did not seek vacation of the stay before the tribunal, and could not rely on alleged non-service after contesting the application on merits. An appeal against such an interim arrangement was therefore not the appropriate course.

Conclusion: The interim order was not shown to be illegal or unsustainable, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were held to lack merit, with liberty reserved to seek vacation of the stay before the tribunal and to urge all contentions there.

Ratio Decidendi: An interlocutory order regulating pleadings or granting interim protection in pending company proceedings, based on prima facie satisfaction and without adjudicating substantive rights, is ordinarily not liable to appellate interference; the proper remedy is to seek vacation of the interim order before the tribunal in the first instance.

---