A letter of demand is properly served on a company if it is sent by registered post to the company's registered office and is refused by the company.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from an order of U. C. Law, J. , dated March 4, 1960, directing the winding up of the appellant company. The appellant company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, on May 30, 1945. The Registered Office of the company is at 34a-B Sashi Bhusan Dey Street, Calcutta. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. . 10,00,000/- divided into 8,000 shares of Rs. 125/- each and the issued and paid up capital of the company is Rs. 1,000/-divided into 8 shares of Rs. 125/- each. It appears that under instructions from the appellant company the respondent company undertook certain constructional work in respect of premises Nos. 167c and 167/1 Bowbazar Street, Calcutta, and disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, the respondent company instituted a suit in this Court being Suit No. 3983 of 1948 against the appellant company for realisation of the sum of Rs. 85,902-15-0 for work done and materials supplied. On August 22, 1958' a decree was passed against the appellant company for Rs. 62,712-15-0 after giving credit for the value of certain raw materials which remained in the possession of the respondent company. On March 14, 1959, the respondent company sent a letter of demand by registered post with acknowledgment due, to the appellant company at its Registered Office, under the hand of its Solicitors, Messrs. Charu Chandra Bosu, demanding payment of the sum of Rs. 62,712-15-0 with interest and costs which was due under the said decree. It is alleged in paragraph 7 of the petition for winding up by the respondent company that the letter so sent was not accepted by the appellant company and was returned to the respondent Company's Solicitors with the postal endorsement "refused". The original postal cover is annexed to the petition and is marked 'b'. As the appellant company did not pay the amount demanded, the respondent company presented a petition for winding up on September 7, 1959, before this Court for admission and usual preliminary directions. In paragraph 9 of this petition it is further alleged that the appellant company had obtained a loan from the Calcutta National Bank Limited of No. P-2 Mission Row Extension, Calcutta, by creating a mortgage by deposit of title deeds in respect of several immovable properties belonging to the appellant company. The amount of the loan was Rs. 7,11,007-0-9. It is further alleged in this petition that the appellants company is unable to pay its debts and is in, insolvent circumstances and it is, therefore, just and equitable that the company should be wound up by an order of this Court. In the verification clause of this petition which was affirmed on September 5, 1959 by one Shibanitosh Ghatak, Manager of the respondent company, paragraph 7 of the petition, which contained statements as to the service of the letter of demand on the appellant company, was verified as true to the knowledge of the deponent. It appears, however, that the time of the presentation of the petition for winding up for admission by the Court on September 7, 1959, direction was asked for, for reveritication of this petition and G. K. Mitter, J. , before whom the petition was presented for admission, gave leave to the respondent company to re-verity the petition. Pursuant to this order of G. K. Mitter,. J. , the manager of the respondent company re-verified the petition, but it appears from this re-verification clause that paragraph 7 of the original petition was verified in this clause as based upon information received from the applicant's Solicitors Messrs. Charu Chandra Bosu and believed to be true. This re-verification was done in compliance. with form No. 13 of the Companies Rules of the Original Side of this Court read with Rule 52 of the Companies Rules as given in Appendix VII. In the affidavit-in-opposition, which was affirmed on behalf of the appellant company on December 9, 1959, by one Gostha Behari Sirkar, who describes himself as the Gove