Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The present application has been filed by the petitioners under Rule 9 read with Rule 29 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, inter alia, seeking the following prayers:-

“(i) re-call the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Co Appls. No.84 of 2013 & 90 of 2013;

(ii) direct the Provisional Liquidator attached to this Court to take over the possession of all the assets of the Respondent Company, including the registered office of the Company, that is, 1-E/2, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055;

(iii) direct the Respondent Company to advertise / publish the citation for the admission of the present winding up petition;

(iv) any other or further order(s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of the present case.”

2. The controversy that arises in the present matter is whether an order under Rule 96 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) for advertisement of admission of winding up petition should be directed and whether an order under Rule 106 of the Rules for appointing the Official Liquidator as the Provisional Liquidator should be passed.

3. The present Company Petition has been filed by the petitioners alleging that the respondent company is liable to be wound up under Sections 433 (c), (e) & (f) read with Section 434 (1)(a) & (c) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The petitioners are shareholders of the respondent company and petitioner no. 1 is also claiming to be a creditor of the respondent company. By an order dated 16.02.2009, this court admitted the winding up petition and ordered that the respondent company be wound up. The court appointed the Official Liquidator as a Liquidator of the company and directed him to take over all the assets and records of the respondent company. The court also directed that citations be published in the "Statesman" (English) and "Jansatta" (Hindi). The relevant extract of the said order is quoted below:-

“18. From the record, it is thus clear that there is a bona fide debt of Rs.7,50,000/- outstanding and payable by the respondent company to the petitioner no.1 and the said debt has not been discharged despite service of a statutory notice upon the respondent company within the period of three weeks from the date of service of the notice. I am, therefore, of the view that the ingredients of Section 433 (e) are made out in the present case.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

45. In view of the law discussed above and by carefully analysing the facts and records relied upon by both counsels, I am of the considered view that it is just and equitable to wind up the Company and allow this petition, under Sections 433(e), Section 433(f) & 433(c) read with Section 434 and 439 of the Act.

46. I, accordingly, admit this petition and direct that the respondent company be wound up. The official liquidator attached to this Court is appointed as the liquidator in respect of the respondent company. He shall forthwith take over all the assets and records of the respondent company and proceed according to law. Citation shall be published in the ‘Statesman’(English) and ‘Jansatta’ (Hindi) for 16.03.2009. Petitioner may take steps accordingly.”

4. The respondent company filed a Company Appeal No.19/2009 before a Division Bench of this Court impugning the order dated 16.02.2009. The Division Bench, by an order dated 07.01.2013, allowed the said appeal and set aside the order dated 16.02.2009 and remanded the matter with a direction that the company petition be disposed of in accordance with law. A liberty was also given to the respondent company to move an application under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 959 within seven days for dispensing with the advertisement of the petition.

5. Admittedly, the respondent company has not filed any application seeking that the advertisement of the petition be dispensed with. Since no such application was filed within the period of seven