Winding-up petitions: a company prejudicially affected may intervene as an 'other person' and oppose the petition.

Rule 99 and Form No. 48 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 permit "any creditor, contributory or other person" to support or oppose a winding-up petition, and the expression "other person" is not confined by section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The High Court applied the plain meaning of the words and declined to restrict them by ejusdem generis or noscitur a sociis, holding that the rule's purpose is to allow persons whose interests may be affected by the winding-up result to seek leave to intervene. A company likely to be prejudicially affected by the winding up of another company is therefore entitled to oppose the petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether a company whose interests are likely to be adversely affected by a winding-up order is entitled to intervene and oppose the winding-up petition as an "other person" under rule 99 read with Form No. 48 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.

Analysis: Rule 99 and Form No. 48 use the expression "any creditor, contributory or other person desirous of supporting or opposing the making of an order on the said petition". The expression "other person" was not confined to the classes mentioned in section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, and there was no genus requiring the words to be restricted by ejusdem generis or noscitur a sociis. The plain and natural meaning of the words, read with the object of the winding-up procedure, showed that persons whose interests may be affected by the result of the petition may seek leave to support or oppose it.

Conclusion: A company whose interests would be prejudicially affected by winding up of another company is within the expression "any other person" and is entitled to intervene and oppose the petition. The conclusion is in favour of the appellant.

---