( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 20. 7. 2001 passed by the learned Company Judge overruling the preliminary objections raised by the appellant-Company to the maintainability of the winding up petition (Company Petition No. 186 of 2000) filed by the present respondent.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under :- the present respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as `the petitioning-creditor or `the original petitioner) has filed Company Petition No. 186 of 2000 for winding up of the appellant-Company under the provisions of Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as `the Act ). Upon service of notice, the appellant-Company appeared and filed affidavit in reply dated 28. 2. 2001 raising the following preliminary contentions :- (I) There is no resolution for institution of winding up proceedings against the respondent Company by the petitioning company; (II) Mr S. L. Jain who has filed an affidavit in support of the petition was not authorized to initiate and/or institute the winding up petition. So, there is no winding up proceedings in the eyes of law which can be said to have been instituted; (III) Duly Constituted Attorney or the Authorized Person of the petitioner Company has not signed the Company Petition, though it is mandatory, according to the form prescribed under the relevant rules; (IV) The affidavit filed in support of the winding up petition is not an affidavit in the eyes of law or in accordance with Rule 21 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules ).

( 3 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, and after considering the resolution dated 28. 6. 2000 passed by the Board of Directors of the petitioning-creditor, the learned Company Judge by order dated 20. 7. 2001 overruled the objections in as much as the learned Company Judge came to the conclusion that the irregularity in the verification of the affidavit and want of signature below the petition and above the verification were the irregularities which were required to be permitted to be cured and the learned Company Judge accordingly afforded an opportunity to the appellant-Company to sign the petition and remove all technical objections within a period of 15 days from the date of the order. The original petitioner availed of the said opportunity. The present appeal came to be filed on 13. 8. 2001. Thereafter the hearing of the appeal came to be adjourned from time to time at the request of the learned counsel for the parties. On 2. 11. 2001, the learned counsel for the original petitioner submitted the affidavit dated 31. 10. 2001 of Mr Sushil Kumar Jain, a Director of the petitioning-creditor stating that at the meeting of the Board of Directors of the petitioning-creditor held on 12. 10. 2001 a resolution came to be passed clarifying the resolution dated 28. 6. 2000 produced in the Company Petition. Thereafter the learned counsel for the parties were heard at length on all the facets of the dispute which is the subject matter of this appeal. The appeal is being finally disposed of by this judgment.

( 4 ) AT the outset, it was pointed out to Mr Ashwin Lalbhai Shah, learned counsel for the appellant-Company to satisfy the Court whether the present appeal is maintainable under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 because all that the learned Company Judge has prima facie done is to pass a procedural order permitting the petitioner to remove certain defects in verification of the affidavit and to put the signature of the petitioner at the foot of the petition above the verification clause. Section 483 of the Act reads as under :- "483. APPEALS from any order made, or decision given, in the matter of the winding up of a Company by the Court shall lie to the same Court to which, in the same manner in which, and subject to the same conditions under which, appeals lie from any order or decisi