( 1 ) M/s. Cable Corporation of India Limited, represented by its Regional Manager, Sri Ashok Gupta, has filed these two Company Applications.

( 2 ) BY C. A. No. 556 of 2002, filed under Order XIII, Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by Act 22 of 2002 (for short the Code), and Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (for short the Rules ), the applicant seeks permission of the Court to produce the list of documents, appended to the application, by condoning the delay, if any, in producing the same. While, by C. A. No. 557 of 2002, filed under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of the Code and Rules 6 and 9 of the Rules, the applicant seeks permission of the Court to produce Xerox copies of the Letter of Intent dated 27-1-1995 and the Purchase Order dated 10-7-1995, placed by the respondent.

( 3 ) ONE Sri K. G. Narasimhan, who claims to be Retainer of the applicant-company, filed an affidavit in support of the applications, stating as follows :

( 4 ) THE applicant-company filed Company Petition under Section 433 (e) read with Sections 434 (1) (a) and 439 (1) (b) of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of the respondent company, namely M/s. Sanghi Industries Limited, for recovery of its dues to the tune of Rs. 50,66,457/-, along with interest thereon. The Company Petition having been admitted, is coming up for the evidence of the applicant-company.

( 5 ) IT is the case of the applicant-company that when the Company-Petition came up for trial, the respondent-company mooted a compromise, and it was felt that the necessity of producing the documents would not arise, if the matter ended in a compromise, but unfortunately, the compromise failed. As the entire transaction with respect to supply of material to the respondent-company took place from their different offices at Chennai, Hyderabad and Mumbai, they could not assemble certain documents, namely (i) Letter of Intent, (ii) Purchase Order placed by the respondent-company, (iii) Invoices raised by the applicant-company, (iv) Consignment Notes in proof of delivery of the materials, and (v) The correspondence exchanged by the applicant and the respondent, and therefore, they could not file them along with the Company-Petition. Inasmuch as the above documents have now been grouped up, the applicant-company, seeks permission to file them as exhibits along with the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. Further, as the original Letter of Intent dated 27-1-1995 and Purchase Order dated 10-7-1995 were retained by the excise authorities when they were sent to the factory for determining the excise duty payable on the materials, the learned counsel submits that the applicant-company is left with the xerox copies thereof, and therefore, the applicant-company be permitted to file the said xerox copies. He would further submit that non-filing of the aforementioned documents along with the Company-Petition, was neither intentional nor wanton, but for the reasons stated above, and therefore, in the interest of justice, the applicant-company be permitted to produce the above-mentioned documents, by condoning the delay, if any.

( 6 ) ON behalf of the respondent-company, one Sri P. Bala Krishna, Legal Manager, filed counter-affidavit stating that the applications filed by K. G. Narasimhan are not maintainable, either in law or on facts, for the reason that a Retainer has no locus standi to depose the affidavit, and more particularly when he has not filed any resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the applicant-company giving him the General Power of Attorney to file the affidavit, and that apart, he has also not obtained any permission from the Court to represent the case.

( 7 ) IT is further stated that the applicant-company cannot be permitted to file documents after a gap of more than three years from the date of filing the Company Petition, and that too when it is coming up