Appealability of procedural orders: permission to implead as petitioner is procedural and not appealable under the Companies Act.

Whether an order permitting a bank to be impleaded as an additional petitioner in winding-up proceedings is appealable under the Companies Act was considered; the court applied the principle that Section 483 permits appeals only from orders affecting parties' rights and liabilities, and held that mere permission to come on record is procedural and does not alter rights or liabilities, so it is not appealable and the appeal was rejected as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order dated July 4, 1980 permitting Canara Bank to be impleaded as petitioner No. 2 in the winding-up petition is appealable under Section 483 of the Companies Act.

Analysis: Section 483 provides for appeals from orders or decisions in winding up proceedings in the same manner as appeals in the court's ordinary jurisdiction, but only orders which affect the rights and liabilities of parties fall within its scope. Procedural orders which do not alter parties' rights are not intended to be appealable under that provision. The court applied this principle and relevant precedent to the order allowing impleadment, concluding that mere permission to come on record as an additional petitioner did not change the appellant's rights or liabilities and was therefore procedural in character.

Conclusion: The impugned order is not appealable under Section 483 of the Companies Act; the appeal is rejected as not maintainable.

---