Meaning of the word "judgment".

This is an appeal from the Order of Ramaswami, J. in O.P. No. 272 of 1952 directing the Government of India to obtain one or more competent persons and inspectors to investigate into the affairs of the Nadar Press Ltd., Sivakasi and to report thereon for further action to be taken under section 242 of the Companies Act of 1956, if it appears to the Central Government that such action should be taken thereunder. The substantive application, namely, O.P. No. 272 of 1952, was filed under section 153-C of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, for obtaining an order appointing an Administrator or Receiver to take charge of the business, properties and assets of the Company, for terminating the services of the Managing Director and other Directors, who were in charge of the affairs of the Company and for certain other reliefs on the footing that there was mismanagement of the Company by the Board of Directors and that the affairs of the Company were conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the Company and its share-holders.

During the course of hearing of the petition the learned Judge tentatively came to the conclusion that the materials on record make out an overwhelming prima facie case for ordering investigation into the affairs of the Company by the machinery provided under the Indian Companies Act. The learned Judge, therefore called for a report from the officers appointed by the Central Government under the provisions of section 237 of the Indian Companies Act. Some of the Directors of the Company feeling aggrieved by the order directing an investigation, have filed this appeal.

A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal is taken on behalf of the respondent on the ground that the order of the learned Judge does not amount to a “judgment” within the meaning of the term in clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

In order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary first to ascertain the scope of section 237 of the Act. That section provides for investigation of the Company’s affairs in certain cases and provides that the Central Government shall appoint one or more competent persons as inspectors to investigate the affairs of the Company and to report thereon in such manner as the Central Government may direct, if the Court, by order declares that the affairs of the Company ought to be investigated by an inspector appointed by the Central Government. The nature of the jurisdiction of the Government in an analogous case has been considered in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raja Narayan Lal Bansilal, In re.1 That case was concerned with an enquiry under section 234 of the Indian Companies Act. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed:

“Thus the scope of the enquiry contemplated by section 234 is clear; wherever the Registrar has reason to believe that the affairs of the Company are not properly carried on he is empowered to make an enquiry into the said affairs. Similarly under section 335 Inspectors are appointed to investigate the affairs of any company and report thereon. The investigation carried on by the inspector is no more than the work of a fact-finding Commission.”

What the learned Judge in the instant case should be held to have directed is the issue of a fact-finding commission in terms of section 237 of the Act for the purpose of investigation. If on the basis of the report of the Inspectors the Government come to the conclusion that any action should be taken in regard to the management of the Company, the Court would consider the same. If the Government do not consider that any further action is necessary, the appellant could have no grievance whatsoever.

Mr. Thyagarajan appearing for the appellant contends that as section 237 speaks of a declaration by Court, it should necessarily involve an adjudication, which would greatly or adversely affect the Company’s reputation and the direction contained in the order of the learned Judge would have a wider significance