https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98230 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. en-us Thu, 08 Jul 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:10:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98230 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 08 Jul 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98230