By the Court.—This company appeal has been preferred questioning the correctness of the order dated 6.1.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Company Petition No. 8 of 2013 filed by M/s. Jupiter Dyechem Private Limited through it’s authorized signatory for winding up of the appellant No. 1 company. The Company Petition has been entertained and for the first time by the impugned order, after four years of filing of the Company Petition, an interim arrangement has been made restraining the appellant No. 1 from alienating or transferring the assets of the Company till the next date of listing. The appeal has been filed on the ground that such an interim order could not have been passed without even considering the objections filed in the counter-affidavit and also the facts that would establish that such an interim order in the background of the litigation was unjustified.

2. It was urged by Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant that even assuming for the sake of argument that an order could have been passed, the same ought to have been done after consideration of the objections that had already been filed and were on record and also after studying the impact of the earlier orders through judicial intervention passed from time to time in this respect. He, therefore, submits that the interim order deserves to be set aside for which this appeal has been filed under the provisions of Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, that still survives after promulgation of the Companies Act, 2013.

3. Opposing the appeal, Sri Sudeep Seth has urged that the appeal is not maintainable keeping in view the provisions as pointed out by him and the notifications relied upon contending that the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the appeal being no longer specifically available, should be treated to have been impliedly taken away in view of the various provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and the notifications issued in this regard from time to time.

4. He has also invited the attention of the Court to the merits of the matter contending that the answering respondents have been deprived of their benefits to which they were entitled and, therefore, necessity of the filing of the winding up petition had arisen that required passing of an interim order, inasmuch as the appellants under the garb of certain orders passed by this Court, were alienating the property and the assets of the Company without there being any security against such dispensation. He has therefore, urged that the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the matter can be heard by the Company Judge where the matter is already proceeding after exchange of affidavits.

5. The background in which the present appeal has been filed is that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are indicated as Directors of the appellant No. 1 Company, are stated to have been nominated by Aditya Jhunjhunwala and Sanjay Jhunjhunwala.

6. It is further contended by Sri Mathur that two company petitions had been filed earlier one by M/s. Banaras Inorganic Pvt. Ltd. and the other by Marval Business Private Ltd. through Sri Aditya Jhunjhunwala and Sanjay Jhunjhunwala investors which petitions were for winding up for appellant No. 1 Company and had been dismissed being Company Petition Nos. 12 and 13 of 2008.

7. M/s. Balrampur Chini Mills also filed a Company Petition for winding up of the appellant No. 1 Company being Company Petition No. 3 of 2010 where an impleadment was sought by Somaiya Organic Employees Association and the Punjab National Bank that was allowed by this Court and a request for withdrawal of the Company Petition was rejected by the order dated 15.2.2011. Questioning the correctness of the said order, Company Appeal No. 1 of 2011 was filed where the Division Bench proceeding to hear the appeal, referred the matter for mediation.

8. During pendency of this mediation, a Civil Suit No. 487 of 2012 was filed for specific performance by the aforesaid two investors Sri Aditya