Statutory notice service is essential before winding up for inability to pay debts; petition dismissed for lack of proof.

Proof of due service of the statutory notice at the company's registered office is essential before a winding-up petition for inability to pay debts can succeed. The court noted that service by under postal certificate was a weak mode and the registered post acknowledgment was not produced, so compliance with section 434 was not established. On the material before it, the respondent's position suggested financial difficulty rather than a case for winding up, and the grounds under sections 433(e) and 433(f) were not made out. The application for appointment of a provisional liquidator also could not survive. The petition was dismissed, with liberty reserved to file a fresh petition if the debt remained unpaid after the notice period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the winding-up petition was maintainable on the ground of inability to pay debts and just and equitable winding up, and whether the company could be ordered to be wound up in the absence of proof of due service of statutory notice.

Analysis: The petition was founded on sections 433(e), 433(f), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The Court found that the petitioner had not established delivery of the statutory notice at the registered office of the respondent-company. Service by under postal certificate was treated as a weak mode, and the acknowledgment card for registered post was not produced. On the petitioner's own showing, the respondent did not dispute liability, and the materials suggested at most financial difficulty rather than a case warranting winding up. Since due service under section 434 was not proved, the ground under section 433(e) was not made out; for the same factual reasons, section 433(f) was also not attracted. The ancillary application for appointment of a provisional liquidator under section 450 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with rule 106 and rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 also could not survive.

Conclusion: The winding-up petition was not maintainable on the grounds invoked and was dismissed; the provisional liquidator application was also dismissed as not surviving.

Final Conclusion: The respondent-company was not ordered to be wound up, though liberty was reserved to institute a fresh petition if the debt remained unpaid after the notice period.

Ratio Decidendi: In a winding-up petition for inability to pay debts, proof of due service of the statutory notice at the registered office is essential, and absent such proof the petition under sections 433(e) and 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956 cannot be sustained.

---