Interlocutory orders in winding-up misfeasance proceedings are not appealable judgments unless they finally determine rights.

An order in winding-up related misfeasance proceedings that decides only limitation, without finally disposing of the application, is interlocutory and not a "judgment" in the Letters Patent sense. Section 202 of the Companies Act allows appeals from winding-up orders subject to the same appeal conditions as in ordinary jurisdiction, and for a special appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 the order must finally determine rights in controversy. Because the impugned order did not conclude the misfeasance proceedings or finally adjudicate the parties' rights, the special appeal was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order in winding-up related misfeasance proceedings deciding only the plea of limitation is a "judgment" so as to be appealable under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court read with section 202 of the Companies Act.

Analysis: Section 202 of the Companies Act permits appeals from orders or decisions made in the matter of winding up, but only in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as appeals from orders or decisions in the court's ordinary jurisdiction. The word "conditions" was treated as including the nature of the order itself and the requirement that it must be of an appealable character. For a special appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5, the order must amount to a "judgment" in the Letters Patent sense, namely a final pronouncement or determination of rights. An order that merely decides limitation without disposing of the misfeasance application does not finally determine the parties' rights and remains interlocutory.

Conclusion: The order was not a judgment and the appeal was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The special appeal failed because the impugned order was only interlocutory and did not finally conclude the rights in controversy.

Ratio Decidendi: An interlocutory order that does not finally determine the rights of the parties is not a judgment for the purpose of appeal under the Letters Patent-based special appeal provision, even if it is passed in winding-up proceedings.

---