S. B. MAJMUDAR, C. J.

( 1 ) COMMON procedural questions arise for our consideration in O. S. A. 19/93 and other Company Petitions. In Company Petitions, learned single Judge, Rajendra Babu, J. , has referred the following two questions for our decision. (1) What is the scope of enquiry or hearing. (2) The nature or contents of order and whether the usual practise of this Court when matters are admitted and interim orders are granted no detailed reasons are setforth, applicable? as the common reference order shows these questions pertain to the stage prior to admission and advertisement of the Company petition moved by the petitioning-creditor for seeking order for winding-up respondent company on the ground that the Comany is unable to pay its debts as envisaged by S. 433 (e) of the Act. In O. S. A. No. 19/93 also these procedural questions squarely arise for our consideration. Therefore, they were all heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE common questions pertain to the procedure to be followed by learned Company Judge before admitting and ordering advertisement of such petition. When such company petitions are filed, whether they could be straightway admitted and ordered to be advertised by the learned Company Judge or whether the learned Company Judge is required to follow some procedure by way of holding a summary enquiry about the right of the petitioner to move the petition and the nature of the order to be passed in such an enquiry or hearing are the main questions posed for our consideration. As the aforesaid questions are referred in the Company petitions and as they also arise in O. S. A. 19/93, we shall first deal with these procedural questions before adverting to the merits of O. S. A. 19/193, the fate of which will depend upon our decision on these referred questions.

( 3 ) MR. Harikrishna Holla, Advocate appearing for appellant Company in O. S. A. No. 19/93 and other learned advocates appearing for the concerned respondent companies, sought to be wound-up, have contended before us that in case of companies which are going concerns and whose commercial-cum-manufacturing activities have not come to a grinding halt and who employ large number of workers would suffer very great and disastrous consequences if such petitions moved by the petitioning-creditors for their winding-up on the ground that the respondent-companies are unable to pay their debts, are ex parte admitted and ordered to be advertised by the learned Company Judge. They however were not very sanguine about these respondent companies which had become defunct by passage of time and which had suspended for indefinite period their commercial-cum manufacturing activities and which had discharged their workmen by the time company petitions came to be filed. In cases of such companies which are already defunct and which otherwise also have no commercial or financial credit in the market, if winding-up petitions against them are ex parte admitted and advertised as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules, no pernicious effect thereof would result on such defunct companies. But in case of a Company, which is a going concern, if petition is moved to wind it up, learned Company Judge has to hold at least a summary enquiry for finding-out whether the petitioning creditor is a creditor of the Company. If yes, what is the ascertained or substantially ascertained due amount whether such debt is due and payable and is not barred by time, whether the company is unable to pay this debt and also its all other debts and after satisfying itself on all these preliminary questions, the question of admitting the company petition and directing its advertisement would arise and not before that. That in the process, the respondent. Company will have to be issued a notice and has to be heard. Mr. Holla, submitted that such a preliminary enquiry would be in the nature of decision on preliminary issues as aforesaid and which may not be lig

Click Here to Read the rest of this document