IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. N. Singh and B. D. Agrawal, JJ.
UTTAR PRADESH TWIGA FIBERGLASS LTD. - Appellant
Versus
PAREKH MARKETING P.LTD. - Respondents
Special Appeal 3 Of 1982
Decided On : 07/21/1983
COMPANY WINDING UP - ADVERTISEMENT - SERVICE OF NOTICE - SUFFICIENCY - INTERPRETATION OF RULES - COMPANY (COURT) RULES, 1959, RULES 24, 26, 96, 99.
Fact of the Case:
A petition was filed for winding up of a company under Section 439(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The company judge directed notice to issue and later passed an order directing advertisement of the petition in two newspapers. The appellant company challenged the order, contending that advertisement could not issue without affording an opportunity to oppose the same, that notice issued under the earlier order was not served upon all the directors of the company, and that the advertisement was defective since it was not made in the Official Gazette.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the learned company judge did not err in directing advertisement of the petition without considering whether notice had to be given first to the company in this behalf. The court also held that the notice issued to the company was served through the managing director and that notices were actually served upon nine out of thirteen directors as well. The court further held that the advertisement of the petition in the two newspapers satisfied Rule 24(1) since the learned company judge could give specific directions with respect to advertisement and dispense with publication in the Gazette.
Issues: 1. Whether the learned company judge erred in directing advertisement of the petition without considering whether notice had to be given first to the company in this behalf? 2. Whether the notice issued to the company was served upon all the directors of the company? 3. Whether the advertisement of the petition was defective since it was not made in the Official Gazette?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 96 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, envisages notice to be given to the "company" which is a legal entity distinct from the directors. Rule 26 is general and does not control the requirement of Rule 96 to serve "the company". 2. The notice issued to the company was served through the managing director and notices were actually served upon nine out of thirteen directors as well. 3. Rule 24(1) is general with a specific rider, namely, "unless the judge otherwise orders, or those rules otherwise provide". Rule 99 which specifically deals with advertisement of petition for winding up lays down expressly that the manner provided for advertisement in Rule 24 is "subject to any direction of the court".
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned company judge dated August 16, 1982, in Company Petition No. 7 of 1982;
( 2 ) THE petition giving rise to the appeal was presented by the respondent creditor against the appellant on May 21, 1982, under Section 439 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956, for the winding up of the company. Learned company judge directed notice to issue. In compliance with the order dated May 21, 1982, notice was issued to the company and also to the directors for August 16, 1982, under registered cover. The office reported that acknowledgments had not returned nor were the notices received back undelivered. Learned company judge thereupon passed the impugned order on August 16, 1982, which reads :
"service held sufficient on the respondent company under Chapter VIII, Rule 12 of the Rules of the Court. The petition for winding up shall be advertised in the newspaper, Hindustan Times, published from New Delhi and Nav Bharat Times, also published from New Delhi, which is in Hindi. The petitioner shall get three advertisements made within a month. An affidavit along with the newspapers may be filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. List the case immediately after the expiry of six weeks. "
The petition was accordingly advertised in the Hindustan Times and Nav Bharat Times, Delhi, on September 8, 1982. The appellants counsel who had put in appearance on August 17, 1982, applied on September 9, 1912, for the stay of the operation of the order dated August 16, 1982. Since the advertisement had come out already, this application was rejected on September 13, 1982, being infructuous.
( 3 ) SRI Bharatji Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that advertisement could not issue without affording opportunity to the appellant to oppose the same. It is urged also that notice issued under order dated May 21, 1982, was not served upon all the directors of the appellant company and that the advertisement is defective since it was not made in the Official gazette. All these contentions were countered by the respondents learned counsel, Sri Sudhir chandra.
( 4 ) A reference may at the outset be made to relevant provisions of Part III of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, which relates to "winding up" petitions. Rules 96 and 99 provide :
"96. Admission of petition and directions as to advertisement.--Upon the filing of the petition, it shall be posted before the judge in Chambers for admission of the petition and fixing a date for the hearing thereof and for directions as to the advertisements to be published and the persons, if any, upon whom copies of the petition are to be served. The judge may, if he thinks fit, direct notice to be given to the company before giving directions as to the advertisement of the petition. "
"99. Advertisement of petition.--Subject to any directions of the court, the petition shall be advertised within the time and in the manner provided by Rule 24 of these Rules. The advertisement shall be in Form No. 48. "
( 5 ) RULES 24 and 26, which appear in Part-I (General) of these Rules, read as under:
"24. Advertisement of petition.-- (1) Where any petition is required to be advertised, it shall, unless the judge otherwise orders, or these Rules otherwise provide, be advertised not less than fourteen days before the date fixed for hearing, in one issue of the Official Gazette of the State or the Union Territory concerned, and in one issue each of a daily newspaper in the English language and a daily newspaper in the regional language circulating in the State or the Union territory concerned, as may be fixed by the judge. "
"26. Service of petition.--Every petition shall be served on the respondent, if any, named in the petition and on such other persons as the Act or these Rules may require or as the judge or the registrar may direct. Unless otherwise ordered, a copy of the petition shall be served along with the notice of the petition. "
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.