Challenged winding up order dismissed for lack of evidence, time-barred debt, and factual grounds.

The appellant challenged a winding up order, contending the Company Judge lacked power to dispense with publication requirements. The Court upheld the order, citing factual grounds. The appellant's assertion of a time-barred debt was dismissed, as it was not raised earlier. Claims of adequate assets were rejected for lack of evidence. The Court found the appeal unsustainable and dismissed it, granting a temporary stay on the judgment's operation.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to winding up order passed by the Company Judge.
2. Interpretation of Rule 24 of the Company (Court) Rules regarding publication requirements for winding up petitions.
3. Assertion of time-barred debt in the winding up petition.
4. Adequacy of assets to meet the debt obligations.
5. Appeal for approaching the Supreme Court.

Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged the winding up order passed by the Company Judge, which was confirmed in a review application. The company was directed to be wound up based on factual grounds discussed in the order.

2. The appellant contended that the Company Judge had no power to dispense with the publication of the winding up petition, specifically in the Government Gazette. The Court clarified that Rule 24 must be read in conjunction with other rules, providing the Company Court with discretion to dispense with certain advertisements. The Court rejected the appellant's interpretation, stating it would negate the Court's discretion.

3. The appellant raised a contention that the debt asserted in the winding up petition had become time-barred before the effective hearing. The Court dismissed this plea, noting that the debt's time-bar status was not raised before the Company Judge and any order would relate back to the petition filing date.

4. The appellant claimed to have adequate assets to meet the debt obligations, suggesting that these assets could be realized to pay the creditor. However, the Court found this submission lacking factual foundation and dismissed it as an attempt to delay proceedings without supporting evidence.

5. The Court found the legal contention raised by the appellant unsustainable and the factual assertions unjustified by the record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant expressed intent to approach the Supreme Court, leading the Court to grant a stay of the judgment's operation until a specified date, with no provision for extension beyond that date.

---