Principles of natural justice not violated.

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

By this appeal, which is filed by M.C.C. Finance Limited, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the "Company" for the sake of brevity), the order passed by the learned Company Judge in C.P. No. 496 of 2000, admitting the liquidation petitions and appointing the provisional liquidator is in challenge.

In all five petitions came to be filed before the learned company Judge. Four of them were by the private creditors under S. 433 of the Companies Act while the petition filed by the Reserve Bank of India for winding up was under S. 45-MC of the Reserve Bank of India Act. Along with the said petition filed by the Reserve Bank of India for liquidation of the company, an application was also filed for appointment of a provisional liquidator.

The learned company Judge has by the impugned order dated 21-8-2000 admitted all the winding up petitions. It is needless to mention the four creditors had filed the petitions on the ground that the company had been unable to pay its debts for which, due notices were served by them under S. 434 of the Companies Act to the company. The petition filed by the Reserve Bank, however, was based on the grounds under S. 45-MC of the Reserve Bank of India Act. The learned company Judge, after hearing the parties elaborately, has admitted all the five petitions and has also appointed a Provisional Liquidator under S. 450 of the Companies Act. It is this order, which has been assailed before us in this appeal by the Company.

There is one more proceeding before us, which has been filed by the Reserve Bank of India, in the nature of the cross-objection, taking exceptions to the observations made by the learned Company Judge. We propose to deal with both these proceedings simultaneously since the question and the parties are common.The learned senior counsel, Mr. A. L. Somayaji, appearing on behalf of the company, at the out set urged that the appeal by the Company was on both the aspects, viz. the admission of the winding up petitions and the appointment of the Provisional Liquidator. We would deal both the issues separately.

To begin with, the learned senior counsel vehemently contended that this order was in breach of the principles of natural justice and passed without giving any adequate opportunity to the Company. According to the learned counsel, in fact, the Company was never put on the notice in respect of either the liquidation petitions or the petition for the appointment of the Provisional Liquidator. In fact, the main thrust of the argument was on the denial of an opportunity to the Company. Mr. Somayaji urged that the learned Company Judge had referred to the two reports by the Chartered Accountants appointed by the Reserve Bank and relied upon them extensively in his order. However, the said reports never made available to the Company and, in fact, the whole exercise of admitting the petitions for winding up and the petition for appointment of Provisional Liquidator was done in a hasty manner. The learned counsel referred to some dates.

According to the learned counsel, while the petitions for liquidation came before the Court on 21st July, 2000, it was only on 9th of August the Reserve Bank of India filed its petitions. He pointed out that the said petition was served upon the Company on 11th August and, therefore, there was hardly any opportunity as the matter was heard by the learned Company Judge on 11th August and 16th August and the orders came to be passed on 21st August, 2000. According to the learned counsel, therefore, this was a case where the Company had very little or no opportunity to meet the allegations of financial mis-management, unpaid debts, etc. or the other allegations made regarding the financial irregularities. The learned senior counsel very pertinently pointed out that all that was directed to the Company by the learned Company Judge was to give the particulars (probably of the financial affairs and status). From that the learned counsel says that