Judgment :- RAMACHANDRA IYER, OFFG. C.J. This is an appeal form the order of Ramaswami J. in O.P.No. 272 of 1952 direction the Government of India to appoint one or ore competent persons as 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 153C 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 service of the managing director and other director, who were in charge of the affairs of the company, and for certain other reliefs on the footing that there was mismanagement of the4 company be the board of directors and that the affairs of the company were conducted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the company and its shareholders During the course of hearing of the petition the learned judge tentatively came to the conclusion that the materials on record made 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 form the officers appointed by the central Government under the provisions of section 237 of the Indian Companies Act. The learned judge, therefore, called for a report form 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 s taken of behalf of the respondent of 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 PatentIn order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary firs5 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 person as inspector 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 as analogous case has been considered in the judgment of the Supreme out in Raja Narayan Bansilal v. Maneck Phiroz Mistry. that case was concerned with an enquiry under section 234 of the Indian companies Act. Their Lordships if 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 235 inspectors are appointed to investigate the affairs of any company and report thereon. the investigation carried on by the inspectors is no more than the work so a cat-finding commission." * What the leaned 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 At for the purpose on investigation. If on the basis of the report of the inspectors the Government come to the conclusion that any action shod 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 whatsoeverMr. If on the basis of the report of the inspectors the Government come to the conclusion that any action shod 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 whatsoeverMr. Thyagarajan appearing of 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 than that of a mere fact-finding commission. We are unable to agree with the contention. For he purpose of direction an investigation under section 237 the court has to find certain preliminary facts. but the finding of the court is not a final one : it cannot affect either the company or its directors. A mere direction to investigate cannot cannot give rise to a legal grievance. In our opinion, the order of the learned judge directing the issue of investigation is something analogous to the issue of a commission for the purpose of looking into the accounts of the parties In Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar, it was observed that an order direction evidence to be taken on commission would not be a judgment so as to be appeable. The characteristic of a judgment has been considered in detail by Govinda Menon J., as he then was, in Central Brokers v. Ramnarayana Poddar and Co. The learned judge laid down two tests to find out whether the adjudication in a particular case is a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 or not. The test were (1) [196-0] 1912 (35) ILR(Mad) 1. (3) Z.L.R. 1954 Mad 1052 (I) whether the order terminates suit or proceedings , and (2) whether it affects the merits of the controversy between the parties in the suit itself. that view was followed in Union of India v. Shanmugha Nadar, a judgment to which one of us wa a party. It s sufficient for the purpose of this case to consider whether the second of the two tests has been satisfiedMr. that view was followed in Union of India v. Shanmugha Nadar, a judgment to which one of us wa a party. It s sufficient for the purpose of this case to consider whether the second of the two tests has been satisfiedMr. Thyagarajan for the appellant contends the in so far as the learned judge has declared that there is a case for investigation, it must be held that ;the merits of the controversy have in a way bee adjudicated upon. We have earlier pointed out that the learned judge has merely sated that there is a prima facie case for further investigation, by the Government under the provisions of section 237. it cannot obviously be said that the merits of the case have been finally disposed of . There is a possibility of the management being vindicated at the investigation ; even other8se the results of the investigation would laid only to the initiation of appropriate proceeding. WE are therefore not satisfied that the order of the learned judge in this case fulfill the test laid down in the various cases as to what a judgment is. In our opinion an order by court directing the investigation under the provisions of section 237 of the Indian Companies Act will not amount to a judgment ;within the ;meaning of the term "judgment" in clause 15 of the Letters patent so as ;to entitle an aggrieved partly to appeal therefrom The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs Appeal dismissed.