Verification of company law petitions may rest on information and belief if sources are disclosed, with later evidence permitted.

A petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 must be verified in the prescribed form, but that verification is distinct from proof of the allegations. Rule 21 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 allows statements based on information received and believed to be true, provided the sources of information and grounds of belief are disclosed. Order 19 Rule 3 CPC does not control such verification affidavits in the manner suggested. The procedural scheme also permits evidence to be received by affidavit or oral testimony at the hearing, so supporting material need not all be filed at the inception. An affidavit and supplemental affidavit that sufficiently disclose the source of information do not by themselves make the petition incompetent.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 was liable to be dismissed in limine because the verifying affidavit was not based on the deponent's personal knowledge and was not supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge; and whether the petitioner was precluded from leading further evidence at the hearing.

Analysis: Rule 21 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 required verification of the petition by affidavit in the prescribed form, and the prescribed form permitted statements based on information received and believed to be true, with disclosure of the sources of information and grounds of belief. The verification of a petition was distinguished from evidence in proof of the allegations, and Order 19 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was held not to govern such verification affidavits in the manner contended. The statutory scheme, including sections 10C and 643 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the corresponding procedural rules and regulations, contemplated that the Tribunal could receive evidence by affidavit or oral testimony as appropriate, and did not require all supporting material to be filed at the inception of the petition. The petitioners' affidavit and supplemental affidavit disclosed the sources of information sufficiently, and the absence of affidavits based on direct personal knowledge at the filing stage did not by itself render the petition incompetent or bar later evidence.

Conclusion: The petition was not liable to be dismissed in limine, nor was the petitioner barred from adducing evidence at the hearing; the challenge to the maintainability of the petition failed.

---