JUDGMENT :

P.L.N. SARMA, J.:

1. This Original Side Appeal has been preferred by the respondent in Company Petition No. 44 of 1994, challenging the order of the learned single Judge dated 11-8-1994 admitting the Company Petition and directing to cause publication of the filing of the Company Petition in two dailies, one in vernacular and the other in English. The respondents in this appeal are petitioners in the Company Petition.

2. For convenience sake, we will refer to the parties in this proceedings as the ‘Company’ and ‘Creditors’. To appreciate the point in issue, it is necessary to refer to the facts which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal. The creditors filed a Company Petition No. 44 of 1994 under Sec. 433(e) read with Sec. 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) for compulsory winding up of the company and for the appointment of Official Liquidator, as the provisional liquidator and to take charge of the affairs of the Company, on the ground that the Company failed and neglected and also unable to pay the debt due to the creditors.

3. When the Company Petition was posted for admission, the learned single Judge passed the following order, which is impugned in this appeal—

“Admit.

Petitioners are directed to take out notices to the respondents and file proof of service into Court. They are also directed to cause publication of the filing of this petition in “Indian Express” and “Eenadu” post on 15-9-1994.”

4. The Company filed a Company Application No. 194 of 1994 in the Company Petition on 16-8-1994 seeking stay of the publication of filing of the Company Petition in two dailies. However, pursuant to the impugned order, publication was caused in ‘Eenadu’ daily vernacular in Rajahmundry edition on 17-8-1994. On the same day, viz., 17-8-1994, the learned single Judge passed an interim order granting stay of the publication. However, on 18-8-1994, the publication was also caused in the English daily ‘Indian Express’, Vijayawada edition.

5. Even though the publication of the admission of the Company Petition was caused in both the dailies, this appeal has been preferred by the Company challenging the procedure adopted by the learned single Judge in straightaway directing the publication of the admission of the Company Petition simultaneously with the order of admission of the Company Petition.

6. Sri V.S. Raju, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Company in this appeal contended that the procedure adopted by the learned single Judge in directing the publication of the admission of the Company Petition immediately after the admission of the Company Petition without giving notice to the appellant/company, is not sustainable. According to him, the procedure adopted is contrary to the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of India, and in particular, the one reported in The National Conduits (P) Ltd. v. S.S. Arora1. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant/company, the learned single Judge ought to have issued ‘Notice before admission’ on the Company Petition so as to enable the Company to contest the same on the ground that it is not a bona fide one and that it was resorted to with an ulterior motive of pressurising the Company to pay the amount; and to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, the Company Petition ought not to be admitted.

7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel Mr. A.V. Mylswamy appearing for the respondents/creditors contended that the Company Court has ample power and jurisdiction not only to admit but also simultaneously order advertisement of the admission of the Company Petition. He also sought to support the order of the learned single Judge by referring to the material filed on behalf of the creditors. Both the Counsel relied upon the decision in The National Conduits (P) Ltd. v. S.S. Arora1.

8. To appreciate the rival contentions, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant rule, which has a bearing on the iss