IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA COMPANY APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2008 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH REGIONAL DIRECTOR MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS ... Appellant Versus KRISHNA H. BAJAJ AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Asst. Solicitor General for the appellant. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. C. CHAVAN, JJ. Date:- 15th September, 2008 P.C. 1. This Company Appeal is directed, according to the learned Asst. Solicitor General, against an order dated 13/7/07 in Company Application No. 24/2007 in Company Petition No. 9/2006. 2. The main matter seeks amalgamation of two companies which are more particularly referred to in the proceedings and the order. 3. The respondent-objector is the person, objecting the scheme of amalgamation. In these circumstances, the learned Judge was considering his objections and request to furnish him copies of the inspection reports, more particularly referred to in the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. The learned Single Judge also relied upon an order dated 25.4.07 in Appeal No.268/2007 wherein the observations are made that these reports should be taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. 5. There is an objection raised by the Central Government which is noted by the learned Judge in para 4 of the impugned order and thereafter, he has allowed the application of the objector and directed that xerox copies of the reports should be made available to him at his own costs. 6. It is these directions which are impugned in the present appeal by the appellant-Union of India. 7. The learned Asst. Solicitor General informs us that the Company M/s. Sesa Industries Ltd. has also filed an appeal against this order which is admitted by this Court. 8. The matter was adjourned at the request of learned Asst. Solicitor General to consider as to how an appeal by the Union of India is maintainable. These are proceedings, seeking sanction to a scheme of amalgamation. The appellant before us is neither the objector nor the petitioner/applicant seeking approval to the scheme. It is only an authority, through its Regional Director which has brought to the notice of the Court objections, if any, to the scheme. It is not the case of the learned Asst. Solicitor General that appellant-Union of India has any other interest in the proceedings. In such circumstances, we repeatedly inquired from him as to how this appeal is maintainable. Beyond relying upon Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, the learned Asst. Solicitor General was unable to point out any other provision. 9. Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 prior to the Amendment Act of 2002, reads thus : " 483. Appeals from orders. - Appeals from [any order made or decision given before the commencement of the Companies (Second Amendment)Act, 2002] in the matter of winding up of a company by the Court shall lie to the same Court to which, in the same manner in which, and subject to the same conditions under which, appeals lie from any order or decision of the Court in cases within its ordinary jurisdiction." This provision would indicate that an order made or decision given in the matter of winding up of a company is appealable to the Court where appeal lies from any order or decision of the Court in cases within its ordinary jurisdiction. Admittedly, nothing has been pointed out to us which would enable us to conclude that the matter falls in a winding up of a company. There is a scheme of amalgamation which is yet to be sanctioned and approved by this Court. In such circumstances, we are of the view that this appeal is not maintainable. 10. There is no other provision under the Companies Act or otherwise which would entitle the appellant-Union of India to maintain an appeal. In such circumstances, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. However, there will be no order as to costs. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. R. C. CHAVAN, J. ssm.