Interlocutory jurisdiction in company appeals remains with a single judge despite final hearing before a Division Bench.

Where a statute expressly empowers a single judge to deal with interlocutory matters in appeals, that jurisdiction is not displaced merely because the substantive company appeal must be heard by a Division Bench. The Mysore High Court Act, 1961 was read as distinguishing merits-based appellate hearing from interim relief, with section 4 governing appeals to a Bench of two judges and section 9 authorising a single judge to decide stay applications. Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as conferring an appellate right, not limiting the forum for interlocutory relief. The preliminary objection to jurisdiction was rejected and the single judge was held competent to hear the stay application.

---

---

Issues: Whether a single judge had jurisdiction under the Mysore High Court Act, 1961 to hear an application for stay of operation of an order passed by a single judge in a company appeal, where the substantive appeal was to be heard by a Bench of two judges.

Analysis: Section 4 of the Act provided for appeals from single-judge orders to be heard by a Bench of two other judges, while section 9 specifically vested in a single judge the power to deal with interlocutory matters in appeals. The Act did not create any ambiguity by reason of the appellate forum being a Bench, because the stay application concerned interlocutory relief and not adjudication on the merits of the appealed order. Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as conferring a right of appeal and not regulating the jurisdiction of the court hearing interlocutory relief. The statutory scheme therefore permitted a single judge to exercise appellate powers on stay applications, subject to the discretionary power to adjourn the matter to a Bench if appropriate.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection to the single judge's jurisdiction was rejected, and the single judge was held competent to hear the stay application.

Final Conclusion: The interlocutory stay matter was held to be within the jurisdiction of a single judge, and the proceedings were directed to continue on merits before that forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute expressly authorises a single judge to deal with interlocutory matters in appeals, that jurisdiction is not excluded merely because the substantive appeal is required to be heard by a Division Bench.

---