Discretionary pre-admission notice in winding-up proceedings accepted as unnecessary where repeated service would be futile.

Further pre-admission notice to a company at the same address was treated as unnecessary where earlier notices had returned unserved and the record showed the registered office was no longer available there. The court reasoned that a repeated notice would be futile, and that newspaper publication would add avoidable cost and consume judicial resources. It also noted that, under the Company (Court) Rules, issuance of a pre-admission show-cause notice is discretionary rather than mandatory. The winding-up petition was therefore admitted without insisting on fresh notice at the stated address.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the winding-up petition should be admitted without insisting on further fresh notice to the respondent company at the stated address.

Analysis: The company's notices had already returned unserved and the material on record showed that the registered office was no longer available at the given address. The Court held that issuing another notice at the same address would serve no useful purpose and would be an exercise in futility. It also noted that service by publication in newspapers, though possible, would unnecessarily burden the petitioner and waste judicial resources. The Court further observed that, under the Company (Court) Rules, issuance of a pre-admission show-cause notice is not mandatory but lies within judicial discretion.

Conclusion: The petition was admitted and the request for further notice at the given address was accepted as unnecessary.

---