Appealability of winding-up advertisement orders confirmed; High Court could not summarily dismiss an appeal outside the specified rule categories.

An order directing advertisement of a winding-up petition was treated as appealable under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, following prior authority recognising appealability under the corresponding earlier companies law. The objection to maintainability therefore failed. The appellate Bench of the High Court was not competent to summarily dismiss the appeal because Rule 966A of the Bombay High Court Rules limited summary admission to specified categories, and this appeal did not fall within them; it had to be heard and decided on merits. The summary dismissal was set aside and the matter remitted for decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order directing advertisement of a winding-up petition was appealable under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956. (ii) Whether the appellate Bench of the High Court was competent to summarily dismiss the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether an order directing advertisement of a winding-up petition was appealable under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: The order directing advertisement was treated as an appealable order. The Court noted that a similar provision under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 had already been construed by the Bombay High Court as conferring appealability, and that view had been specifically approved by the Supreme Court in earlier authority.

Conclusion: The order directing advertisement of the winding-up petition was appealable, and the objection to maintainability failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate Bench of the High Court was competent to summarily dismiss the appeal.

Analysis: Rule 966A of the Bombay High Court Rules required only specified classes of appeals to be placed first for admission. Appeals not falling within those classes were entitled to be admitted as a matter of course. The appeal in question did not fall within the listed exceptions, so the appellate Bench could not summarily dismiss it and had to hear and decide it on merits.

Conclusion: The appellate Bench was not competent to summarily dismiss the appeal.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal by the appellate Bench was set aside and the matter was sent back for decision in accordance with law, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing appellate rules reserve summary admission only for specified categories of appeals, other appeals must be entertained and disposed of on merits, and an appealable winding-up order cannot be summarily rejected without hearing.

---