Winding-up petition advertisement discretion may be suspended where immediate publication could cause prejudice before objections are decided.

Company winding-up rules ordinarily require advertisement of a petition, but the scheme does not make publication automatic or inflexible in every case. Rule 96 allows the judge to give notice to the company before directing advertisement, and the court's inherent power under Rule 9 may be used to make directions necessary to secure justice or prevent abuse of process. Where a closely held family company faces a contributory's petition on just and equitable grounds, immediate advertisement may cause serious prejudice before preliminary objections and allegations of mala fides are determined. The court therefore had discretion to suspend advertisement for the time being.

---

---

Issues: Whether the court had discretion to suspend advertisement of a winding up petition at the stage of admission, despite the rules relating to advertisement of such petitions.

Analysis: The rules governing company winding up petitions required advertisement in the ordinary course, but the scheme of the rules did not compel an automatic and inflexible advertisement in every case. Rule 96 permitted the judge to give notice to the company before directing advertisement, and Rule 9 preserved the court's inherent power to make directions necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process. In a case involving a closely held family company and a contributory's petition on just and equitable grounds, immediate publication could cause serious prejudice before preliminary objections and allegations of mala fide were decided.

Conclusion: The court had discretion to suspend advertisement of the petition for the time being, and the appeal was allowed.

---