The statutory notice under Section 434 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 1956, must be strictly construed and served at the company's registered office. Waiver, estoppel, or reliance on Section 433 (e) and 434 (1) (c) cannot cure the invalidity of the notice.

( 1 ) THE short question which is involved in the present winding-up petition is whether the petition is not maintainable on account of the fact that the statutory notice under Section 434 (1) (a) of the act was not served on the registered office of the company at Kanpur.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts in brief are that Alliance Credit and Investment Ltd. ("the petitioner" in short) had entered into a lease agreement with Khaitan Hostombe Spinels Ltd. ("the respondent-company") in respect of one set of electrical equipment with certain terms and conditions con-tained in the lease agreement. One of the conditions therein was that the respondent was required to pay in advance lease rentals every quarter at Rs. 5,32,534 plus sales tax on the agreed dates mentioned in the schedule to the agreement. The petitioners case is that the cheque dated August 5, 1995, issued by the respondent-company in respect of the lease rental was dishonoured by the bank. Subsequently, another cheque for an identical amount met with the same fate. The petitioner served a statutory notice of demand dated September 6, 1995, which was served by registered post on the branch office of the company at Calcutta. In reply to the same, the respondent sent a letter requesting for about six weeks time to make the payments. However, only a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was paid by cheque dated October 17, 1995, and the balance amount of the two cheques which were dishonoured were nbt paid despite repeated demands, hence, the present winding up petition was filed in this court under the provisions of Sections 433 (e), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

( 3 ) IN response to the notice issued by this court on the petition, the respondent-company filed an application supported by a short counter-affidavit in which a preliminary objection was raised to the effect that the statutory notice under Section 434 (1) (a) of the Act dated September 6, 1995, was neither addressed to nor was served at the registered office of the respondent at Kanpur. Consequently, it was not a valid notice and the petition for winding up was not maintainable. It is this preliminary objection which is up for consideration before me.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel, S. P. Mehrotra, has urged that the lease agreement was entered into between the parties at Calcutta. The cheques issued by the respondent-company were drawn on bankers at Calcutta, where they were dishonoured. The cheque for Rs. 1 lakh sent subsequently was also drawn on the bankers at Calcutta. The registered notice which was received at the Calcutta office of the respondent-company was replied to from Calcutta and four to six weeks time was requested for making payment. In view of the same, it cannot be disputed that the registered notice of demand was served on the respondent-company who have not only replied to the same but have also acted upon their promise by sending a cheque for Rs. 1 lakh to the petitioner. Therefore, technically speaking, the notice was duly served on the respondent-company and it cannot be contended that the notice was invalid. Further, learned counsel has urged that the object of serving the notice is that the company must have knowledge of the demand made by the creditor and the said object has been served inasmuch as the company has accepted its liability and has not only promised to pay but has also in part performance paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. In support of his sub-missions that the provisions of section 434 (1) (a) of the Act are not to be strictly construed but only sufficient compliance was required, learned counsel has relied upon certain decisions. I have carefully perused the said decisions but none of them is strictly on the point as they do not pertain to a notice under Section 434 (1) (a) of the Act.

( 5 ) IN the case of C. R. Priyachandrakumar v. Purasawalkam Permanent Fund Ltd. [1995] 83 comp Cas 150, the Madras High Court was c