The central legal point established in the judgment is that the mere publication of a notice to inform the general public about the interim order passed by the court cannot be considered an abuse of process of law.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. This order shall dispose of C. A. No. 479 of 2006, filed by the respondent-company and C. A. No. 545 of 2006, filed by respondent No. 7 to seek an order to strike off the petition seeking winding up of the respondent-company.

2. The brief facts are that the present petition for winding up of respondent No. 1 company has been filed on April 5, 2006. On April 27, 2006, the notice of the petition was ordered to be issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted. The alienation of the assets of the respondent-company, except in due course of the business of the company, during the pendency of the winding up petition, was ordered to be subject to the final order passed by this Court.

3. It may be noticed that earlier the petitioner has filed a civil suit (copy annexure P17), inter alia, claiming that the company as a legal entity is non est in the eyes of law. On April 27, 2006, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a statement that the civil suit shall be withdrawn within one week from the said date. The order dated April 27, 2006, reads as under:

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has the instructions to state that civil suit annexure P17 will be withdrawn within one week from today.

In view of the said statement, let notice of the petition be issued to the respondents for May 25, 2006, to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted. Any alienation of any of the assets of the respondent-company, except in due course of the business of the company, during the pendency of the present petition, shall be subject to the final order passed by this Court.

4. After the said order was passed, the petitioner has caused advertisement to be published in the newspapers. The said advertisement, which appeared in the Tribune on June 2, 2006, reads as under:

Public Notice It is hereby brought to the notice of general public that vide order dated April 27, 2006, passed in Company Petition No. 61 of 2006, under Section 433(f) of the Companies Act for winding up the company on April 27, 2006, by Hon ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta, Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. Re : Vinod Krishan Khanna and Ors. v. Amritsar Swadeshi Textile Corporation P. Ltd. and others, it has been ordered that any alienation of any of the assets of the respondent-company except in due course of the business of the company, during the pendency of the present petition, shall be subject to the final order passed by this Court. Any person disregarding this notice shall do so at his own risk and responsibility. Dated : May 31, 2006 Vinod Krishan Khanna 121, Race Course Road, Vimal Krishan Khanna Amritsar.

5. It is the case of the applicants in the aforesaid application that the said advertisement is without any direction of this Court required under Rule 96 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") and that the conduct of the petitioners by advertising the winding up proceedings is abuse of process of the court and that this Court should take every effort to discourage such flagrant and serious breach. It is also pointed out that the company is a premier organization of woollen industry and it generates revenue of crores of rupees by way of foreign exchange, income-tax, sales tax, custom duty, service tax in addition to excise duty and the act of the petitioners by advertising the winding up proceedings at the pre-winding up stage clearly spells out the mala fide intention to create unimaginable harassment for the company ; damage the reputation and status of the company; hamper the business of the company; unduly pressurise the company to accede to their illegitimate demands ; create panic among the suppliers, customers, creditors, depositors and bankers and create confusion and restlessness among the employees of the company. Thus, it is alleged that the advertisement of the winding up proceedings has resulted in an irreparable loss and a serious in