Recall of ex parte company petition admission refused where delay was unexplained and advertisement had already issued.

Recall jurisdiction over an ex parte order admitting a company petition and directing advertisement was declined because the applicant showed no sufficient cause for its delayed challenge. The Court noted that the application was filed long after the applicant became aware of the admission order, without any satisfactory explanation for not seeking timely protection against advertisement or moving earlier for recall. Since the petition had already been advertised and the applicant could still file a reply and contest the winding-up proceedings, no prejudice warranting recall was shown. The materials also disclosed a prima facie basis for admission, leaving no ground to interfere.

---

---

Issues: Whether sufficient cause was shown to recall the ex parte order admitting the company petition and directing advertisement, particularly after the petition had already been advertised.

Analysis: The application was moved long after the applicant learned of the admission order, and no satisfactory explanation was given for not approaching the Court promptly to seek protection against advertisement or to file the recall request earlier. The Court noted that the petition had already been advertised, the applicant would still have the opportunity to file its reply and contest the winding-up proceedings, and the cited authorities did not assist the applicant on the facts. The materials on record also disclosed a prima facie case for admission of the petition, and the Court found no basis to exercise recall jurisdiction in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The recall of the order admitting the company petition and directing advertisement was refused.

---