1. Even at the initial stages of this appeal, we did entertain a doubt as to the tenability of the appeal filed under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, the Act), for the reason that the appeal was against the orders passed by the learned Company Judge functioning as a Company Court and the appellant being the Official Liquidator, who incidentally also happens to be the Official Liquidator attached to the Court when the Company Court is supervising the winding up proceedings of a Company which has been ordered to be wound up by the very Court.

2. In view of the position of the Official Liquidator, who is virtually a limb of the Company Court and the order that is questioned of the Company Court itself, we entertained as to whether the Official Liquidator, who Court itself, can turn around and question of the order passed by the Company.

3. On this aspect, we Deepak, learned Counsel for the Official has drawn our attention to the statutory of section 483 of the Act. This section of appeal as an intra-Court appeal against order passed by the learned company Judge in of winding up of a Company and the appeal Bench may be in terms of the rules statutory provisions governing intra-Court app Court in this case the High Court.

4. Mr. Deepak has also attention to the provisions of Section 457 the powers of the liquidator. Mr. Deepak that even while the Official Liquidator acts as Company Court, he also has the dual resp if representing the Company under liquidation, which though has been ordered to be wound up, nevertheless retains its independent and distinct identity as a legal person being a Company and having not yet gone out of existence and in such circumstances, if it is found that there is a need for filing an appeal against an order, having regard to the duty cast on the Official Liquidator to protect the Company which he represents, such an appeal can definitely be filed in terms of Section 483 of the Act, a substantive provision enabling any aggrieved person to file an appeal and therefore, the appeal is very much tenable.

5. Our attention is also drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of SHANKARLAL AGGARWALA AND OTHERS Vs. SHANKARLAL PODDAR AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 507, to submit that the Supreme Court had occasion to examine the scope of the corresponding statutory provision under the erstwhile Indian Companies Act, 1913 and Section 202 of this Act corresponding to the present Section 483 of the Act. Learned Counsel also submits that in terms of this judgment, it has been recognised that the Official Liquidator has the power to file an appeal and maintain an appeal under Section 483 and provisions of Section 457 confer such a power on the Official Liquidator.

6. Sri Manjunath, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent would point out that the Official Liquidator, assuming that he represents the Company has no independent existence and that the comes into picture only because of the statutory provisions and as a person who assists or helps the Company Court in supervising the winding up proceedings.

7. It is also pointed out that the Official Liquidator’ basic duty can only be to protect the interest of the community of creditors and the shareholders, as the object of any winding up proceedings is primarily to liquidate the Company, in the sense, to liquidate the assets of the Company ensuring an equitable distribution of the remaining assets of the Company. A Company which as recognised by the Court, is unable to carry on its affairs in a manner as proclaimed in its articles and memorandum and which is only required to be wound up and if so, unless the order sought to be appealed against is indicated to be an order detrimental to the interest of the community of creditors and shareholders, the appeal per se is not one which can be said to be tenable and at any rate at the instance of the Official Liquidator, for examination by this Court etc.

8. We f