Honble LAKSHMANAN, CJ.–This Special Appeal was filed by the respondent in the Company Petition (Sand Plast India Ltd., Jaipur) against the order dated, 15.09.1998 passed in S.B. Company Petition No. 9/97, by P.P. Naolekar, J. dismissing the objections against the maintainability of the winding up petition filed by the respondent Company (ITC Bhadrachalam Finance & Investment Ltd. Mumbai. Company Petition No. 9/97 was filed by the respondent herein under Sections, 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the appellant company. According to the respondent Company, the appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,51,237/- due to it on 31.12.1996 with interest thereon. Since the appellant company was unable to meet its financial obligations, the above company petition was filed for winding up of the appellant company, as according to the respondent herein that the appellant company appears to be in a commercially insolvent condition.

(2). Preliminary objections were filed by the appellant company. The objections are:

(i) The winding up petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the affidavit filed in respect of the petition is not in conformity with the provisions of the Companies Act and the rules made thereunder. It is not an affidavit in the eye of law and the winding up petition is not a properly constituted petition.

(ii) According to the appellant, every affidavit shall be drawn up in the first person and shall state the full name, age, occupation and place of abode of the deponent. It shall be signed by the deponent and sworn to in the manner prescribed by the court or by the Rules and practices of the Court. Rule 18 of the Company (Court) Rules states as above. The rule further provides that every exhibit annexed to an affidavit shall be marked with the number of the proceeding to which it relates and shall be initialed and dated by the authority before whom it is sworn. Thus, as per the provisions of Rule 18 of the Company Court Rules every petition has to be drawn up in the first person and it shall state full name, age, occupation of the deponent. It is submitted by Shri Paras Kuhad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the above description of the deponent has not been given in the main body of the affidavit and this affidavit does not comply with the form of the affidavit given in form No. 3. He has further submitted that even the description of the deponent which has been given as mere heading, does not state the age and occupation or the place of abode of the deponent. Thus, the affidavit is defective and the company petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.

2. It is further submitted by Shri Paras Kuhad that the deponent of the affidavit has no personal knowledge as he is a Constituted Attorney and that the deponent Shri Vivek Mazumdar has not disclosed his source of information and/or knowledge. It is the requirement of law that the grounds of belief must be stated with different clauses. It has also not been stated specifically as to on whose advice the paragraphs No. 23 to 27 are based. Further, the affidavit has no co-relation with the petition.

3. No averments have been made either in the petition or in the affidavit that the person verifying the age has been authorised by the Board of Directors of the Company to file the aforesaid petition.

4. The respondent-petitioner has abused the process of law by filing a winding up petition as the alleged dispute is of civil nature raised for the alleged non-performance of the contract as entered into between the two parties regarding bill discounting facility.

5. The winding up petition is not maintainable, since its contents do not satisfy the requirements as envisaged by the provision of the Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act. It is also denied that the appellant company is in a commercially insolvent condition.

(3). Mr. Paras Kuhad drew our attention to various provisions of the Companies Act and the rules made

Click Here to Read the rest of this document