Single judge can stay order in appeal under Mysore High Court Act.

The court held that a single judge has jurisdiction to stay the operation of an order in an appeal under sections 9 and 10 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961. The court rejected the argument that only a Bench of two judges could grant a stay, emphasizing that the single judge can exercise appellate powers in interlocutory matters. It was clarified that multiple appeals should be avoided, and the Companies Act does not provide for endless appeals. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent's counsel was overruled, allowing the interlocutory applications to proceed for hearing on their merits.

---

---

Issues: Jurisdiction of a single judge to stay the operation of an order in an appeal.

In this case, the primary issue revolves around the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961, specifically sections 4, 9, and 10. Section 4 states that an appeal from a judgment passed by a single judge shall be heard by a Bench of two judges. Section 9 delineates that a single judge can exercise powers in matters of interlocutory character in appeals, while section 10 specifies matters to be heard by a Bench of two judges. The order under appeal pertains to the winding up of a company, and the question is whether a single judge has jurisdiction to stay the operation of the order when the appeal is to be heard by a Bench of two judges.

The contention raised by the respondent's counsel is that only a Bench of two judges has the authority to grant a stay in an appeal, not a single judge. The argument is based on the premise that a higher court, which in company appeals is the Bench of two judges, is competent to order a stay. Reference is made to the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically Order 41, Rule 5, which allows the appellate court to order a stay of execution for sufficient cause. The respondent's counsel asserts that interlocutory matters in appeals under section 4 do not fall within the scope of section 9, emphasizing that appeals under section 4 lie to a Bench and not the High Court.

Intervening counsel argues against the respondent's position, highlighting that multiple appeals could arise if a single judge's decision on a stay application is subject to further appeal. However, the court rejects this argument, emphasizing that the Companies Act does not contemplate multiple appeals and that the Act must be construed to avoid endless appeals. The court clarifies that the jurisdiction of the High Court is not determined by section 483 of the Companies Act but is regulated by the Act itself.

The court ultimately overrules the preliminary objection raised by the respondent's counsel, asserting that a single judge, under section 9, has the power to hear interlocutory applications in appeals and stay the operation of the order appealed against. The court emphasizes that the single judge exercises the appellate powers of the High Court when hearing such applications, as expressly conferred by the Act. The judge's discretion to adjourn a matter for a Bench of two judges is acknowledged but deemed unnecessary in this context, as the single judge does not assess the merits of the order under appeal when deciding on a stay application. Consequently, the interlocutory applications will proceed to be heard on their merits.

---