Winding up petition naming the company through its managing director was upheld, with statutory notice treated as sufficient service.

A winding up petition was not treated as defective merely because the company was described through its managing director, since the petition, notice and proceedings were clearly directed against the company itself under the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. Service of statutory notice was also held sufficient where notice was sent to the registered office under the Companies Act, 1956, returned unserved, and then published in newspapers. The company's failure to respond despite repeated opportunities further supported compliance. On these grounds, the winding up order was sustained and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the winding up petition was defective because the company itself was not properly arrayed as a respondent. (ii) Whether service of statutory notice under the Companies Act, 1956 was sufficient when notice sent to the registered office returned unserved and notice was also published in newspapers.

Issue (i): Whether the winding up petition was defective because the company itself was not properly arrayed as a respondent.

Analysis: Under Rule 95 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and the prescribed forms, a winding up petition is to be presented in the name of the company whose winding up is sought. The cause title and the contents of the petition showed that the proceeding was directed against the company itself, and the inclusion of the managing director did not alter the character of the petition. The petition, notice, and subsequent steps all related to the company and not to any separate personal liability of the managing director.

Conclusion: The objection was rejected and the petition was held not to be defective.

Issue (ii): Whether service of statutory notice under the Companies Act, 1956 was sufficient when notice sent to the registered office returned unserved and notice was also published in newspapers.

Analysis: Notice was issued to the company at its registered office under section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. Although it returned with the remark that the addressee had left, the notice had been sent to the registered office and was followed by publication in newspapers. The company also failed to respond despite repeated opportunities before the company judge and in appeal, which reinforced the inference that it was not contesting the debt.

Conclusion: Service was held to be sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement.

Final Conclusion: The winding up order was sustained and the appeal failed on all substantial grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A winding up petition is not defective merely because the company is described through its managing director where the petition clearly seeks winding up of the company, and statutory notice is sufficiently complied with when sent to the registered office and followed by newspaper publication after non-service.

---