Recall of winding-up order for sufficient cause upheld, with costs imposed to balance fairness and finality.

A winding-up order may be recalled where the party shows sufficient cause for non-appearance and recall is needed to enable decision on merits. The Court applied a liberal approach to sufficient cause and complete justice, while balancing finality against fairness. Mere assertions about being away or having a strong case were not enough on their own, but the absence was not treated as mala fide or intentional. The order was recalled and the application was allowed, with costs imposed to compensate the other side.

---

---

Issues: Whether the winding-up order should be recalled on the ground that the company had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance and that recall was necessary to do complete justice.

Analysis: The application for recall was examined against the background of repeated service of notice and the explanation offered for non-appearance. The Court held that mere assertion that the director was away and that the company had a good case on merits was not by itself enough, but the governing consideration was whether the circumstances justified recalling the order so that the matter could be decided on merits. The principles relating to sufficient cause and liberal construction for doing complete justice were applied, and the absence was not treated as mala fide or intentional. The Court also considered the need to balance finality with justice and noted that costs could compensate the opposite side.

Conclusion: The winding-up order was recalled, and the company application was allowed subject to payment of costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a party shows a sufficient basis for non-appearance and recall is required to advance complete justice, the Court may exercise its discretion to recall the order, with costs as compensation where appropriate.

---