Back
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Mudholkar, Deo
BASTAR TRANSPORT AND TRADING CO , JAGDALPUR AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
COURT OF WARDS, BASTAR AND ANOTHER – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 54 of 1953
Decided on : 14-01-1954
COMPANIES ACT - WINDING UP - AMENDMENT OF PETITION - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING - JOINDER OF COMPANY AS RESPONDENT - POWER OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
A petition for winding up a company was filed by the respondents against the appellant company and its managing director, appellant No. 2. The company was not made a party to the petition, and the appellant No. 2 filed a written statement opposing the winding up. The respondents then applied to amend the petition to add the company as a respondent and to plead that the principles governing dissolution of partnership should apply to the case. The appellant No. 2 objected to the amendment, arguing that it was made at a late stage, was not bona fide, and made out a new case against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the application for amendment was not made at a late stage, was bona fide, and did not make out a new case against the appellant No. 2. The court also held that the lower court had power to add the company as a respondent, and that no prejudice was caused by such joinder.
Issues: 1. Whether the application for amendment of the petition for winding up was made at a late stage? 2. Whether the application for amendment was bona fide? 3. Whether the application for amendment made out a new case against the appellant No. 2? 4. Whether the lower court had power to add the company as a respondent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the application for amendment was not made at a late stage because the case on merits had not been taken up by the court and the time was taken up by interlocutory proceedings. 2. The court held that the application for amendment was bona fide because the respondents had not persisted in the original petition in spite of objection and had not obtained an order favorable to them. 3. The court held that the application for amendment did not make out a new case against the appellant No. 2 because the allegations in the amended petition were based on the same facts as the allegations in the original petition. 4. The court held that the lower court had power to add the company as a respondent under O. 1, R. 10, Civil P. C.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
1. This is an appeal under S. 202, Companies Art. against the order allowing amendment of the petition for wincing up.
2. The facts are: The appellant No. 2 and the respondents Maharaja Pravirchandra Bhanj Deo and Shri Shyam Sunder Deo were the only three share-holders of the private limited company Shri Bastar Transport and Trading Company, Limited, who is appellant No. 1. This Company was registered on 29-11-1949. On 25-7-1952 the respondents filed a petition for winding up the Company under S. 162, Companies Act, impleading the appellant No. 2 as respondent. The Company was not shown as a respondent in the petition though in the cause title it was stated "In the matter of the Bastar Transport and Trading Company Limited and in the matter of the Indian Companies Act, VII of 1913. The District Judge appointed "ex parte' a provisional liquidator.
3. In response to a notice of the petition served on the Company on 30-7-1952, it appeared on 9-3-1052 through the appellant No. 2 and complained about the notice which was apparently in form No. 6 i.e. a notice to respondent under O. 41, R. 14. Civil P. C, of the date fixed for hearing AN appeal. The Company further submitted that no order could be passed against it on the petition for winding up as it was no: made a party. On the same day the appellant No. 2 filed a written statement opposing the appointment of the provisional liquidator and for certain directions. He also filed a written statement on merits. The question of the appointment of provisional liquidator was taken up at subsequent hearings and by the order dated 30-8-1952 that appointment was confirmed. On 27-9-1952 the appellant No. 2 preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 177 of 1952 against that order. He also preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 189 of 1952 against the order dated 6-9-1352 which is said to have modified the order dated 30-8-1952 without hearing the appellant No. 2.
4. Thereafter the proceedings for winding up were shred by the High Court. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 177 of 1952 was decided on 23-1-1953 in favour of the appellant No. 2 and the lower Court was directed to proceed to decide the main application as expeditiously as possible.
5. When the case was taken up by the lever Court on 14-2-1953, the respondents made an application for amendment of the petition for winding up. On 9-2.-1953 they had also made an application for leave to add the Company as respondent No. 2. By the order under appeal the lower Court, allowed the joinder of the Company as respondent No. 2 and partially allowed the application for amendment.
6. It is contended that the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to proceedings under the Companies Act, which are proceedings in equity. This contention is unacceptable. By S. 141, the preceding provided in the Code in regard to suits has to he followed, so far as it can be made applicable, in ail proceedings in any Court civil jurisdiction. This section is made applicable to proceedings under the Companies Act: - 'In the matter of West Hometown Tea Co., Ltd.', 9 All 180 (A). - 'Official Liquidators' Dehra Dun-Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. v. President, Council of Regency, Nabha State, 1936 AIR(All) 826'(FB) (B) and - 'Seethiah v. Veuhasubbiah,1919 AIR(Mad) 675' (C). We are therefore of the view that the application for amendment of the petition for winding up can be decided on the principles governing amendment of pleadings under O. 6, 71. 17, Civil P. C. The principles governing such amendments are to be found in - 'Lachhaman Singh v. Mahendralal Choudhari,1938 AIR(Nag) 383'. (D) and - 'Liladhar Daulatram v. Firm Radhakishan Ramsahaya,1946 AIR(Nag) 5' (E). Stone C. J. delivering the judgment of the Court in AIR 1938 Nag 388 (D), observed: "Amendments should always be made, in our opinion, with great readiness. In most cases up to issue stage no special burden as to costs is called for and thereafter justice is met by leave being granted conditionally on the payment, of cost
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
