V. RAMASWAMI J.

O.S.A. No. 128 of 1981 is against the order dated August 19, 1981, in Company Application No. 844 of 1981 and O. S. A. No. 189 of 1981 is against the order dated December 7, 1981, in Company Application No. 843 of 1981. Both these applications were filed pending Company Petition No. 30 of 1981, which is a petition filed under sections 433(e) and (f), 434 and 439(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of a company by name Ramakrishna Industries Private Ltd. Company Application No. 843 of 1981 is for the appointment of a provisional liquidator pending disposal of the main company petition and C.A. No. 844 of 1981 is an application filed under rule 11 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read with Order 39, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, for an order of injunction restraining the appellants herein from borrowing any moneys from banks, financial institutions or others without the prior permission of the court and from alienating and/or creating any charge or encumbrance over any of the assets of the company in its various enterprises, pending disposal of the winding-up petition. On July 13, 1981, the company petition and also the two C.A. Nos. 843 and 844 of 1981 were posted before the court. The learned judge ordered notice to the company petition for the hearing on August 11, 1981. He also ordered notice to the appellants herein in the application for the appointment of a provisional liquidator and in C.A. No. 844 of 1981 granted an interim injunction and posted the application for further hearing on September 27, 1981. By an order dated August 19, 1981, the learned judge granted the injunction, the operative portion of which is as follows :

"In the result, there will be an injunction restraining respondents Nos. 1 to 6 from borrowing any moneys from banks, financial institutions or others and from alienating and/or creating any charge or encumbrances over any of the assets of the first respondent company in its various enterprises except that the first respondent company is entitled to honour any pending contracts entered into by the company with third parties before the presentation of this application, all its existing commitments vis-a-vis its staff and labourers, electric charges, central excise duty, LIC premium, payments due to employees' co-operative stores, telephone bills and sales tax due, availing of the existing bank facilities with any of its bankers subject to the condition that the particulars for all these payments and the source from which such payments were to be met, are furnished in detail in the applications. It is made clear that the company is always at liberty to approach the court for further directions and that the applicants' right to impugn any such transaction under section 536(2) is left untouched." *

Against this order, O.S.A. No. 128 of 1981 has been filed. By another order dated December 7, 1981, in C.A. No. 843 of 1981, the learned judge appointed the official liquidator as the provisional liquidator pending the winding-up petition. Against this order, O.S.A. No. 189 of 1981 has been filed.

Both before the learned single judge and before us, learned counsel for the appellants questioned the maintainability of the application for injunction. This was on the ground that the main winding-up petition was not set for hearing on that date and that, therefore, section 443 of the Companies Act cannot be invoked by the applicants and that the applications cannot also be sustained either under Order 39, rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code or rule IX of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.

The relevant portion of section 443(1) reads :

"(1) On hearing a winding-up petition, the court may---

(a) dismiss it, with or without costs ; or

(b) adjourn the hearing conditionally or unconditionally ; or

(c) make an interim order that it thinks fit ; or

(d) make an order for winding up the company with or without costs, or any other order that it thinks fit.

The argument of lea