Defective verification and lack of authorisation rendered the company petition not maintainable and led to dismissal at threshold.

A company petition was treated as not maintainable where the verifying affidavit was pre-dated and therefore did not validly verify the petition as filed. The irregularity was not cured by any subsequent affidavit. The representative who filed and argued the petition also failed to produce authorisation from the petitioners, resulting in non-compliance with the applicable Company Law Board Regulations. In the absence of rectification of these procedural defects, the petition was rejected at the threshold and the merits were not examined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the company petition was maintainable in view of the defective verification of the petition and the absence of authorisation in favour of the representative who filed and argued it.

Analysis: The petition was found to suffer from a pre-dated verifying affidavit, which could not operate as a valid verification for the petition as filed. No subsequent affidavit was filed to cure the irregularity. The representative appearing for the petitioners also failed to produce authorisation from the petitioners to plead on their behalf, resulting in non-compliance with the applicable Company Law Board Regulations. In the absence of rectification of these procedural defects, the petition was treated as not maintainable at the threshold, and the merits were not examined.

Conclusion: The company petition was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed on procedural grounds.

---