Curable service defect in winding-up petitions does not bar admission where notice was received and a prima facie case existed.

Service of a winding-up petition is governed by the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, which require service of the petition and prescribe a verification affidavit, but do not make service of the affidavit or accompanying papers a mandatory condition for dismissal. A defect in service of those papers is therefore curable and does not by itself defeat maintainability. Where the respondent receives notice, enters appearance, and raises no substantial defence to the debt-based claim, the petition may still be admitted if the materials show a prima facie case. On that basis, the Court found the procedural objection insufficient and admitted the winding-up petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the company petition for winding up was liable to be dismissed for alleged defective service of the petition and accompanying papers on the respondent, and whether the petition should be admitted on the materials placed before the Court.

Analysis: The relevant provisions of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 distinguish between the petition and the verifying affidavit. Rule 21 requires the petition to be verified by affidavit filed along with it, while Rule 26 requires service of the petition and Rule 27 prescribes the notice form. The rules do not expressly require service of the affidavit as a condition precedent to maintainability. Even assuming non-service of the affidavit or other papers, the rules do not prescribe dismissal as the consequence, and such defect would at best be curable. The objection was also raised after notice had been received and after the respondent had entered appearance, without any substantial defence to the debt-based winding-up claim. On the materials filed, including the prima facie documentary support for the alleged inter-corporate deposit and outstanding amount, the petition disclosed a case for admission.

Conclusion: The alleged defect in service did not warrant dismissal of the petition, and the winding-up petition was admitted with directions for publication.

Final Conclusion: The Court accepted the petitioner's winding-up request at the admission stage and rejected the respondent's procedural objection as insufficient to defeat the petition.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural defect in service of accompanying papers, where the rules do not make such service mandatory on pain of dismissal, is curable and does not by itself bar admission of a winding-up petition.

---