( 1 ) THIS appeal under Letters Patent of this Court, is from the order dated 28 July 1967 passed by Pandey, J. , in Company Petition No. 7 of 1965, whereby the appellant's application for leave to intervene was rejected,

( 2 ) SHYAMSARAN Gupta (respondent) made an application for winding up of the company, named "sir J. P. Shrivastava and Sons (M. B.) Private Ltd. , Dabra", (hereinafter called the "debtor-company'), on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of Section 433 (e) of the Companies act, 1956. Under Clause (f) of that Section, a company may also be wound up, if the Court is of opinion that It is just and equitable that the company should be wound up. When the petition for winding up was advertised under Rule 99 of the companies (Court) Rules, 1959, the Gwalior Sugar Co, Ltd. , Dabra (hereinafter called the 'intervener') applied for leave to intervene, as it desired to oppose the petition. Its application was rejected on the ground that the intervener is neither a creditor, nor a contributory, nor does it come within the expression "other person desirous of supporting or opposing the making of an order on the said petition", within Form No. 48 contained in the said Rules.

( 3 ) THE appellant contended before us, as before the learned single Judge, that the debtor-company is the Managing Agent. It has a large number of fully paid up shares in the intervening company; that the debtor company has guaranteed payment of loan which the intervening company borrows from time to time from certain banks; and that the winding up of the debtor-company would enormously affect the working of the intervening company. Thus, the intervening company has substantial interest in opposing the petition for winding up.

( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that the only provision which enables the supporting or opposing a petition for winding up is contained in Rule 99 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read with Form No. 48. That Rule reads thus:

"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. "

Rule 24 is a general Rule for advertisement of petition.

( 5 ) THE relevant portion of Form No. 48 is in these words:

"any creditor, contributory or other person desirous of supporting or opposing the making of an order on the said petition should send to the petitioner or his advocate notice of his intention. . "

The appellant's contention is that the words "other person" in the above expression are omnibus. They are comprehensive enough to include any person whoever he may be.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, urges that the words

"other person" must be restricted to those enumerated in Section 439 of the companies Act. In our opinion, this contention is untenable. Section 439 provides for an application for winding up. It enacts that an application to the Court for winding up of a company shall be by a petition. Those who can present such petition are enumerated. A creditor falls under Clause (b) and a contributory under clause (c ). If the intention of the words "other person" in Form No. 48 was to limit it to the other persons specified in Section 439, then the words "other person" were bound to be qualified by the expression "specified in Section 439 (1)".

In the absence of those words, the expression "other person" cannot be limited to company, the Registrar and the person authorised by the Central Government in that behalf, in a case tailing under Section 243. ( 7 ) WE shall now consider whether the words "other person" must be read ejusdem generis. The ejusdem generis rule, or the rule noscitur a sociis, is really a question of the assumed intention of the statute. Where there are general words following particular and specific words, the general words must be confined to things of the same kind as those specified