1. Application for winding-up — Challenge to the form and verification of the supporting affidavit. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1992 Supreme(SC) 437
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M.Sahai : S.Ranganathan : V.Ramaswami
Malhotra Steel Syndicate
Versus
Punjab Chemi-plants Limited
Case No. : 2587 of 1992
Date of Decision : 7/14/92
Important Points
Affidavits should be construed liberally. Minor procedural defects or irregularities in the form of an affidavit should not lead to the dismissal of a petition; the party must be granted an opportunity to rectify such defects.
Subject
Company Law - Winding-up Proceedings
Act Referred
COMPANIES ACT: S.433, S.434, S.439
Headnote
(A) Company Law - Winding-up petition - Verification of affidavit - Liberal construction - Procedural irregularity - Opportunity to rectify - Petition dismissed on the ground that the affidavit was not in proper form - Verification, on a proper and liberal construction, contains an averment that statements are true and correct to the knowledge of the appellant - Affidavit not defective - Even if there is some slight defect or irregularity in the filing of the affidavit, the party should be given an opportunity to rectify the same - Dismissal of appeal on the short ground of improper form of affidavit is erroneous. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A petition for winding-up was filed, supported by an affidavit. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the affidavit filed in support of the petition was not in the proper form and, consequently, the petition could not be entertained.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the verification of the affidavit, when viewed through a proper and liberal construction, sufficiently contained an averment that the statements made were true and correct to the knowledge of the appellant. Therefore, the affidavit was not defective. Furthermore, the court held that even if a slight defect or irregularity existed, the appellant should have been granted an opportunity to rectify it.
Issues: Whether the affidavit filed in support of the winding-up petition was defective and whether the dismissal of the petition on the sole technical ground of the affidavit's form was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: Affidavits should be interpreted liberally to determine if they satisfy the requirement of verification. Procedural irregularities or slight defects in the form of an affidavit should not result in the summary dismissal of a petition; instead, the party must be given an opportunity to rectify such defects.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Facts of the case:
A petition for winding-up was filed, supported by an affidavit. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the affidavit filed in support of the petition was not in the proper form and, consequently, the petition could not be entertained.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the verification of the affidavit, when viewed through a proper and liberal construction, sufficiently contained an averment that the statements made were true and correct to the knowledge of the appellant. Therefore, the affidavit was not defective. Furthermore, the court held that even if a slight defect or irregularity existed, the appellant should have been granted an opportunity to rectify it.
Issues: Whether the affidavit filed in support of the winding-up petition was defective and whether the dismissal of the petition on the sole technical ground of the affidavit's form was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: Affidavits should be interpreted liberally to determine if they satisfy the requirement of verification. Procedural irregularities or slight defects in the form of an affidavit should not result in the summary dismissal of a petition; instead, the party must be given an opportunity to rectify such defects.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the supporting affidavit was defective in form and whether such defects justified the dismissal of the petition. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. The affidavit verification was sufficient under liberal construction, and any minor irregularity should have been allowed to be rectified. (Para 2 )
4. A petition cannot be dismissed on the sole ground of a slight defect in the affidavit without granting the party an opportunity to rectify it. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — Order set aside — Company appeal revived for disposal on merits. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
6. How should the verification of an affidavit in a winding-up application be construed?
The verification should be subject to a proper and liberal construction to determine if it contains an averment that the statements are true and correct to the knowledge of the appellant. (Para 2 )
7. What is the legal consequence of a slight defect or irregularity in a supporting affidavit?
A slight defect or irregularity in the filing of an affidavit should not lead to the dismissal of a petition; the party should be given an opportunity to rectify the defect. (Para 2 , 3 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) WE have heard both the counsel. We have looked at the form and verification of the affidavit filed before the High court in support of the application for winding-up. We are satisfied that the verification, on a proper and liberal construction, does contain an averment to the effect that the statements made in the affidavit are true and correct to the knowledge of the appellant. We do not think that the affidavit can be described as defective in any respect. But that apart, we are of the opinion that even if there is some slight defect or irregularity in the filing of the affidavit, the appellant should have been given an opportunity to rectify the same
(3) WE are, therefore, of the opinion that the division bench was in error in dismissing the appeal on the short ground that the affidavit filed in support of the petition was not in proper form and that the petition could not be entertained. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Division Bench dated August 21, 1991.
(4) IN the result, the Company appeal will stand revived before the Division bench for disposal on merits.
(5) THE appeal is allowed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs
