Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the findings and the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge under the order dated 7th October, 2005. The aforesaid order came to be passed by the learned Company Judge in a petition filed under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act by the respondent contending, inter alia, that the appellant is indebted to the respondent and that the appellant is unable to pay its debt.

2. When the said petition was filed, objections were raised regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the affidavit annexed to the petition was not in the prescribed form and, thereforee, the said petition could not have been entertained and was required to be dismissed on that ground alone. The second objection was also regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground that the power of attorney, on the basis of which the affidavit was filed by one Shri Pankaj Sachdeva, is not stamped and, thereforee, no affidavit could have been filed in support of the Company Petition by a person on the basis of such unstamped document.

.3. Both the aforesaid contentions were argued at length before the learned Company Judge. By the impugned order, however, the learned Company Judge held that so far as the issue with regard to the affidavit not being in accordance with the prescribed form is concerned, the same is only a curable defect and, thereforee, could be cured by directing for amendment of the said affidavit.

4. So far as the second contention is concerned, the learned Company Judge held that the said power of attorney if not duly and properly stamped, this could be subsequently rectified by resorting to the provisions of impounding a document and directing the concerned authority to pay the penalty in accordance with the prescribed law. With regard to the allegation of fraud on the part of Shri Pankaj Sachdeva in asserting in rejoinder that the power of attorney was duly stamped the Court held that there was no fraud but only a bona fide mistake and, thereforee, the same was not fatal.

5. The said findings are under challenge in this appeal on which we have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

6. So far as the contention with regard to power of attorney not being duly stamped and the affidavit being filed on the basis of an unstamped document is concerned, there is a statement made in rejoinder by Shri Pankaj Sachdeva that the power of attorney is duly stamped and registered as per law. The said statement on the face of it is incorrect, for the power of attorney admittedly was not stamped at all as on that date when the said statement was made. The rejoinder was filed on 7th January, 2004 and the said document came to be impounded and subsequently stamped on 19th/22nd April, 2004. thereforee, there is no doubt that the said document on the date of swearing of the affidavit by the deponent was not a stamped document and in fact was an unstamped one. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that as and when such unstamped document is relied upon and referred to in any proceedings, there is a provision for impounding the same. In the present case also when an objection was raised about the said document on the basis of which affidavit was filed, relying upon the fact that there was valid authority given under the power of attorney executed in favor of Shri Pankaj Sachdeva, it was also the Courts obligation to see that the said document was properly stamped when the same is acted upon and referred to. Subsequently, by an order passed by the Court the said power of attorney was ordered to be properly stamped and the same was accordingly stamped on 19th/22nd April, 2004. thereforee, the decision rendered by the learned Company Judge that the aforesaid power of attorney being now stamped could be relied upon cannot be faulted.

.7. So far as the issue with regard to fraud and misrepresentation played by Shri Pankaj Sa