https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100675 The court held that the impugned order, although interlocutory, was a judgment under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent due to its serious prejudice to the company. The appeal was deemed maintainable under Section 483 of the Companies Act as well. The company's application for a supplementary affidavit was found not to be with mala fide intent, and the court granted leave for its filing. The learned judge's discretion in refusing the affidavit was overturned, allowing the company to file it by a specified date. Costs were awarded to the respondents, with dismissal of the appeal if the company failed to comply. en-us Fri, 20 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:19:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100675 The court held that the impugned order, although interlocutory, was a judgment under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent due to its serious prejudice to the company. The appeal was deemed maintainable under Section 483 of the Companies Act as well. The company's application for a supplementary affidavit was found not to be with mala fide intent, and the court granted leave for its filing. The learned judge's discretion in refusing the affidavit was overturned, allowing the company to file it by a specified date. Costs were awarded to the respondents, with dismissal of the appeal if the company failed to comply. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 20 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100675