https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199213 An interlocutory order in winding-up proceedings was appealable under Section 483 because it materially affected the company's business, customer dealings, credit and reputation, and was not a harmless procedural step. The Court held that the winding-up court did have power under Section 443(1)(c) to make interim orders at the admission stage, but that power had to be exercised on adequate hearing and sound, relevant grounds. The inventory order appointing advocates as Commissioners was unjustified on the facts: the articles did not support immediate inventory, the allegations were vague and stale, and the execution of such an order would be effectively irreversible. The appeal succeeded and the order was set aside. en-us Mon, 17 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Feb 2018 10:25:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199213 An interlocutory order in winding-up proceedings was appealable under Section 483 because it materially affected the company's business, customer dealings, credit and reputation, and was not a harmless procedural step. The Court held that the winding-up court did have power under Section 443(1)(c) to make interim orders at the admission stage, but that power had to be exercised on adequate hearing and sound, relevant grounds. The inventory order appointing advocates as Commissioners was unjustified on the facts: the articles did not support immediate inventory, the allegations were vague and stale, and the execution of such an order would be effectively irreversible. The appeal succeeded and the order was set aside. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 17 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199213