Hon’ble F.I. Rebello, C.J.—A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent-Company that the Letters Patent Appeals, as filed would not be maintainable. It is submitted that considering Section 483 of the Companies Act, an appeal would lie only in respect of the order made or decision given in the matter of winding up. In the instant case, it is pointed out that the appeals arise not from an order in winding up, but an order for reconstruction of debts and in these circumstances, the appeals ought to be dismissed.

2. On the other hand, on behalf of the appellant and respondent No. 2, it is sought to be contended that merely because there is no appeal provided under Section 483 of the Companies Act, would not oust the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain an appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeals as filed are maintainable and the preliminary objection ought to be rejected. We may reproduce Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, which reads as under :

“5. Special appeal.—An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award—(a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act or one Judge.”

It is also not necessary to trace the history of the said Rule considering that the matter has been considered at length in a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of The Notified Area Committee and another v. Sri Ram Singhasan Prasad Kalwar, AIR 1970 All 561. We may gainfully refer to paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the said judgment, which are as under :

“11. In the former High Court of Allahabad, upto July 25, 1948, an appeal from the judgment of a single Judge passed in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction lay to a Division Bench under Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent. On July 26, 1948 the said High Court and the Chief Court of Oudh were amalgamated and a new High Court was constituted. The new High Court was named the Allahabad High Court. The amalgamation of the two Courts was brought about by the U.P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. This order was issued by the Governor-General under Section 229 of the Government of India Act, 1935.

12. From July 26, 1948 the Letters Patent ceased to have effect in virtue of Cl. 17 (a) of the Order. Clause 9 of the Order, however, provided that the law in force on July 25, 1948 ‘’with respect to practice and procedure’ in the former High Court would apply in relation to the new High Court. Clause 13 of the Order provided that the law in force on the said date ‘’relating to the powers of..................division Courts’ of the former High Court would apply in relation to the new High Court. Clause 9 or Cl. 13 preserved Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent for the new High Court. National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick, 1953 SCR 1028 : (AIR 1953 SC 357) till the commencement of the Constitution.

13. Article 225 of the Constitution provides that the jurisdiction of and the law administered in any High Court and the powers of the Judges thereof in relation to the administration