Unopposed winding-up petition: adequate evidence may justify a compulsory order without the higher proof needed in contested cases

A compulsory winding-up petition under the Companies Act was treated as adequately supported where no one appeared to oppose the grave allegations made against the company. The court distinguished earlier authority on contested petitions, explaining that the stricter requirement for evidence of true evidential value, rather than hearsay, applies where the petition is genuinely disputed. Because the petition here was unopposed, that higher threshold did not arise, and the evidence was considered sufficient for the usual compulsory order.

---

---

Issues: Whether a compulsory winding-up order should be made on the evidence presented in support of the petition under section 169 of the Companies Act, 1948.

Analysis: The petition was based on grave allegations against the company, but no one appeared to contest those allegations. The evidence was held to be adequate in the circumstances, and the distinction drawn in earlier cases was that where a petition is genuinely contentious, the petitioner may need to support the case by evidence of true evidential value rather than hearsay. On the facts here, that stricter question did not arise because there was no opposition to the petition.

Conclusion: A compulsory winding-up order was warranted and the order was made in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a winding-up petition is unopposed and the allegations are adequately supported by evidence, the court may make the usual compulsory order without requiring the higher level of proof applicable to a contested petition.

---