The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order can be treated as a judgment within the meaning of the Letters Patent and appeals can be maintained if it vitally affects the valuable rights of a party.

M. Chockalingam, J.

When these appeals were taken up for enquiry, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.T.K.Seshadri appearing for the first respondent raised a question as to the maintainability of the appeals.

2. On the point of maintainability, both the Counsel put forth their respective submissions.

.3. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent/applicant, these appeals have been brought forth by the second respondent in Company Applications 1625 to 1628 of 2006 in C.P.No.387 of 2003 whereby a direction to the respondents 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 first respondent company by respondents 3 to 8 and submit a report before the Court on the acts of misfeasance and breach of trust committed by the respondents 3 to 8 and to take cognizance of the offence committed under Sec.454 (5) of the Companies Act, 1956, on the basis of the prosecution of non filing of statement of affairs by the respondents 3 to 8 and also to grant interim injunction restraining the second respondent from acting through its directors, employers, agents and representatives from alienating, transferring and disposing of any assets movable or immovable of the second respondent company pending disposal of the above company applications, and on enquiry, the learned Single Judge has made only an interim order directing the Official Liquidator to investigate about the affairs of the second respondent company who is the appellant herein, and after giving notice to the Directors of the second respondent company including the Ex-Directors of the first respondent company and also after giving opportunity to the petitioning creditors, to file a report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order and has also posted all the applications on 19. 2009.

4. Pointing to paragraph 20 of the common order, whereby the learned Single Judge has issued the above directions, the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent would urge that the said order is neither a final order nor an order amounting to a judgment. The learned Senior 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, the learned Senior Counsel relied on two decisions of this Court one reported in AIR 1962 MADRAS 163 (NPSN RAMIAH NADAR AND OTHERS V. NKR AMIRTHARAJ) and the other made by the First Bench in OSA No.361 of 2006 (B.S.GERG AND OTHERS V. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND OTHERS) on 112. 2006.

.6. Contrary to the above contentions, the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr.T.Poornam would submit that in the instant case, the first respondent company was ordered to be wound up in C.P.No.387 of 2003; that the above four applications were made for the said reliefs; that as far as Company Application No.1628 of 2006 is concerned, an interim injunction restraining the second respondent, who is the appellant herein, from acting through its directors, employers, agents and representatives from

.alienating, transferring and disposing of any assets movable or immovable of the second respondent company was asked for; that the appellant/second respondent company was an independent legal entity, and the same was not ordered to be wound up; but, the