AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (12) TMI 510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity of the appeals. 2. On the point of maintainability, both counsel put forth their respective submissions. 3. According to learned senior counsel for the first respondent/applicant, these appeals have been brought forth by the second respondent in Company Applications Nos. 1625 to 1628 of 2006 in C. P. No. 387 of 2003 (Blailklock Compass World Transport ( HK) Ltd. v. Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras, as the liquidator of M/s. Scanwell Freight Express ( India) P. Ltd. (in liquidation) [2010] 153 Comp. Cas. 480 (Mad)). Whereby a direction to respondents Nos. 3 to 8 to file the statement of affairs with the official liquidator forthwith and also a direction to the official liquidator to examine the conduct of the affairs of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nior counsel brought to the notice of the court Order 36, rule 1 of the Madras High Court, Original Side Rules, which stipulates that a memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of a decree and judgment or an order amounting to a judgment appealed from ; that in the instant case, the learned single judge has not made any decree or judgment or an order amounting to a judgment; but, it was only an interim order directing the official liquidator to investigate into the affairs of the second respondent-company and file a report in which neither a prejudice is caused, nor any valuable right of the appellant is invaded; and that in such circumstances, the appeals are not at all maintainable. 5. In support of his contentions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....econd respondent-company ; that under the circumstances, it is not correct to state that the appellant cannot maintain the appeals on the pretext that the order under challenge did not amount to a judgment; that to maintain an appeal under Order 36, rule 1 of the High Court Original Side Rules, the order to be challenged need not be a final order; that it would suffice if the order would adversely affect the valuable rights of a party ; that in the instant case, the order under challenge has vitally affected the valuable rights of the appellant, and hence it has got to be treated as a judgment within the meaning of the letters patent, and thus the appeals are well maintainable. 7. In order to strengthen his contentions, learned counsel r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he final orders, the learned single judge thought that it was a fit case where investigation has got to be ordered on the affairs of the second respondent-company who is the appellant herein, in order to find out the veracity of the allegations made and then to proceed further. Aggrieved over the direction to the official liquidator to investigate into the affairs of the second respondent/appellant, the appellant has preferred these appeals. 11. The only controversy between the parties at this stage is as to the maintainability of the appeals. It is contended by the first respondent's side that what is challenged is not an order amounting to a judgment, and hence, these appeals could not be maintained. On the contrary, it is contended by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emedy is confined only to contest the plaintiff's case on his own evidence without being given a chance to rebut that evidence. As such an order vitally affects a valuable right of the defendant it will undoubtedly be treated as a judgment within the meaning of the Letters Patent so as to be appealable to a larger Bench. Take the converse case in a similar suit where the trial Judge allows the defendant to defend the suit in which case although the plaintiff is adversely affected but the damage or prejudice caused to him is not direct or immediate but of a minimal nature and rather too remote because the plaintiff still possesses his full right to show that the defence is false and succeed in the suit. Thus, such an order passed by the tria....