JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Naveen Sinha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vinay Saran for the appellant, Sri Arnab Benerji, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri G.S. Hajela Advocate for the CBI. 2. Appellant before this Court states that this special appeal has been filed under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, against the order passed by the Company Judge dated 20th October, 2008 whereby the application made by the writ petitioner for grant of bail has been rejected. He states that the cause title wrongly mentions that the same is Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court. Facts in short relevant for deciding the present appeal are : 3. A winding up petition was filed against M/s. Viniyoga Clothex Limited being Company Petition No. 62 of 1997 in which winding up orders were issued by Company Judge and the official liquidator was appointed for liquidation of the Company under Section 449 of the Companies Act. The appellant Vinay Kumar Bagla is stated to be the Managing Director of the Company at the relevant time. Since ‘statement of affairs’ of the Company were not filed and the matter remained pending for liquidation for years, orders were issued for appearance of the appellant, who became untraceable, resulting in passing of an order requiring the CBI to search the appellant, inasmuch as, all other attempts to ensure the presence of the appellant by the Company Judge failed. Such an order was passed by this Court on 9th January, 2008. In pursuance of the order of the Company Judge the petitioner was traced and arrested by CBI. He was produced before the Special Judicial Magistrate CBI on 10th August, 2008. It is stated that the appellant made an application before the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI (Pollution) Lucknow for being released on bail, inasmuch as, his arrest was for the purpose of ensuring his presence in the winding up proceedings. The application, so made by the appellant, was rejected under the orders of the Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution) C.B.I. Lucknow dated 4th September, 2008 with an observation that the CBI may obtain further instructions from the Company Court in the matter. The petitioner was advised to file a bail application in the Company Petition No. 62 of 1997. The application, so made by the appellant, was rejected under the orders of the Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution) C.B.I. Lucknow dated 4th September, 2008 with an observation that the CBI may obtain further instructions from the Company Court in the matter. The petitioner was advised to file a bail application in the Company Petition No. 62 of 1997. This bail application has been rejected under the order of the Company Judge dated 20th October, 2008. Hence the present intra Court appeal. 4. While considering the present special appeal, a query was made to the counsel for the appellant as to under which provision of the Companies Act such a bail application has been filed before the Company Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant was fair enough to admit that the Companies Act does not contemplate any such bail application being filed before the Company Court. 5. In view of the statement, so made, we have no hesitation to record that the order passed by the Company Judge is not referable to any of the provisions of the Companies Act and therefore, this Company Appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, would not be maintainable. Consequently, we hold that the present appeal is not maintainable under Section 483 of the Companies Act against an order of the Company Judge refusing to grant the bail, as prayed for and is hereby dismissed. 6. At this stage of the proceedings, Sri Naveen Sinha submits that his arrest has been effected only in terms of the order passed by the Company Judge and further from the last line of the order of the Special Judicial Magistrate it is apparent that he is only awaiting order of the Company Court for releasing the petitioner. The aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the counsel for the appellant needs no examination by this Court inasmuch as if the order passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, refusing to grant bail to the appellant, on whatever ground, it may be alleged to be not in accordance with law, then according to us, the appellant has ample remedy under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure by way of such proceedings as he may be advised or by way of criminal writ. 7. 7. In view of the aforesaid, we only provide that if any application for bail is filed by the appellant before the concerned Court under the provisions of Cr.P.C., the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law without being prejudiced by any of the observation made by the Company Judge. —————