Winding-up advertisement rules permit notice to the company, newspaper publication, and no mandatory Gazette notice when the court so directs.

Where the winding-up rules permit notice to the company before advertisement and make advertisement subject to the court's directions, the company judge may validly order newspaper advertisement after prior notice to the company, without first inviting separate objections to advertisement. Service on the company as a separate legal entity is sufficient for that purpose, and notice to each director is not a prerequisite. Gazette publication is not mandatory where the court has specifically directed newspaper publication only and the rules leave advertisement to judicial control.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a winding-up petition, the company judge could direct advertisement after issuing notice to the company without first inviting separate objections to advertisement. (ii) Whether service on the company, and not necessarily on each director, was sufficient for purposes of ordering advertisement. (iii) Whether the petition had to be advertised in the Official Gazette despite the specific direction for newspaper advertisement only.

Issue (i): Whether, in a winding-up petition, the company judge could direct advertisement after issuing notice to the company without first inviting separate objections to advertisement.

Analysis: The relevant company-court rules permitted the judge, upon filing of a winding-up petition, either to issue notice to the company before giving advertisement directions or to admit the petition and direct service and advertisement. The notice issued before the impugned order satisfied the requirement of prior intimation. The petition was not advertised immediately on filing, and the company had an opportunity to appear before the advertisement was ordered.

Conclusion: The direction for advertisement was valid and the contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether service on the company, and not necessarily on each director, was sufficient for purposes of ordering advertisement.

Analysis: The rule governing admission and advertisement required notice to the company as a separate legal entity. Service on individual directors was not a prerequisite to ordering advertisement under that rule. In fact, the notice was served through the managing director and service was later found on several directors as well.

Conclusion: Service on the company was sufficient and the objection failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the petition had to be advertised in the Official Gazette despite the specific direction for newspaper advertisement only.

Analysis: The general advertisement rule was expressly subject to the judge's directions, and the specific winding-up rule likewise made advertisement subject to the court's directions. The judge was therefore competent to prescribe newspaper publication and dispense with Gazette publication.

Conclusion: Gazette publication was not mandatory in the circumstances and the challenge was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The procedural directions for service and advertisement in the winding-up proceeding were upheld, and no ground for interference with the order was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the winding-up rules permit notice to the company before advertisement and make advertisement subject to the court's directions, the judge may validly order newspaper advertisement without separate objections, without service on every director, and without Gazette publication if so directed.

---