Properly placed-on-record requirement governs consideration of stay applications; unlisted applications need not be examined.

A court is not obliged to consider an application that has not been properly placed on record and listed in accordance with prescribed procedure. Where the record does not show that a stay application was before the company court at the relevant hearing, a complaint of non-consideration cannot be sustained. On that basis, no interference with the impugned order was warranted, and the admission of the company petition was left undisturbed. The party seeking stay was left to pursue the application through proper procedural channels.

---

---

Issues: Whether the company court was bound to consider an application for stay said to have been filed but not shown to have been listed on the record, and whether the appeal against admission of the company petition had merit.

Analysis: The application for stay was not shown to have been listed before the company court on the relevant date, and the record did not disclose that it formed part of the court record at the time of hearing. An application can be considered only when it is properly brought on record and listed in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The court was therefore under no obligation to examine a document not validly placed before it. Since the complaint of non-consideration was not substantiated, no interference with the impugned order was warranted.

Conclusion: The contention that the stay application was wrongly ignored was rejected, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order admitting the company petition was left undisturbed, and the appellant was left to pursue the stay application through proper procedural channels.

Ratio Decidendi: A court is not bound to consider an application that has not been properly placed on record and listed in accordance with prescribed procedure.

---