T. S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order dated 4th April, 2007 passed in CA No. 385/2007 by which the learned Company Judge has issued notice to the non-applicants and directed the Company Application to come up for hearing on 26th april, 2007. ( 2 ) THE appellant claims to have purchased certain movable property comprising plant, machinery and structures owned by Consolidated Steel and alloys Ltd. , a company in liquidation before the Company Court. The purchase it is alleged was through the medium of the Tehsildar, Muraina in the State of madhya Pradesh for recovery of certain arrears of electric charges outstanding against the company in liquidation. The appellant's grievance now is that although it has acquired lawful ownership of the said plant, machinery and structures in consequence of the sale made in its favour by the Tehsildar concerned, the very same plant, machinery and structures are being offered for sale by the Company Court together with land and building in terms of an order dated 15th March, 2007. Aggrieved by the proposed sale insofar as the same relates to the plant, machinery and structures, the appellant appears to have moved CA No. 385/2007 before the Company Court inter alia pointing out that the sale by the Tehsildar in its favour was legally valid and that the very same plant, machinery and structures could not be offered for sale once again. When the said application came up before the learned Company Judge, the same has been adjourned to 26th April, 2007 while issuing notice to the counsel opposite. ( 3 ) HAVING heard Mr. Chandhiok, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, we are of the opinion that the present appeal is not maintainable inasmuch as the order passed by the Company Court does not determine any right or obligation of the appellant so as to give to the appellant an occasion to make any grievance against the same. The Company Court has simply issued notice and directed the matter to come up for further consideration on 26th April, 2007. It is only when the matter is taken up and effective orders on the application filed by the petitioner passed that the petitioner may feel aggrieved of any such order and file an appeal against the same. The Company Court has simply issued notice and directed the matter to come up for further consideration on 26th April, 2007. It is only when the matter is taken up and effective orders on the application filed by the petitioner passed that the petitioner may feel aggrieved of any such order and file an appeal against the same. So long as that does not happen, the petitioner has no real cause to make any grievance. ( 4 ) MR. Chandhiok however submitted that since the Company Court has invited bids for the movable assets already purchased by the appellant, in case the application filed by the appellant is not disposed of before the bids are accepted, the same is likely to cause prejudice to the appellant. He urged that the appellant's apprehension that the bids may be accepted even without examining the appellant's case as set out in the application may be allayed by a suitable observation to the effect that the Company Court would examine the application and pass appropriate orders before accepting or rejecting the bids received in pursuance of its order dated 15th March, 2007. ( 5 ) WE see no reason to decline that limited prayer. It is obvious that the appellant's grievance regarding the proposed sale of plant, machinery and structures made in the application shall have to be examined and appropriate orders passed on the application filed by it before the said plant, machinery and structures are transferred to any one emerging as the successful bidder before the learned Company Judge. We hope and trust that the Company Court shall keep this aspect in view before passing any further orders as regards the acceptance of the bids received by it. With the above observations, this appeal is disposed of.