Winding-up jurisdiction and statutory debt default upheld where saved notification and creditor demand supported the petition.

A saved jurisdiction-conferring notification under the earlier companies law continued to operate under the Companies Act, 1956 for petitions already filed before the later withdrawing notification took effect, so the District Judge remained competent to hear the winding-up petition. A company was also treated as unable to pay its debts where a creditor served the statutory demand and the company failed to pay within the prescribed period; a prior decree did not bar use of that statutory route, and the decree-holder remained a creditor. Proceedings could further continue in the firm's name despite the death of some partners. The winding-up order was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the District Judge retained jurisdiction to entertain the winding-up petition in view of the later notification withdrawing such jurisdiction, and (ii) whether the company was liable to be wound up for inability to pay its debts on the basis of the creditor's decree and statutory notice, and (iii) whether the proceedings could continue in the firm's name notwithstanding the death of some partners.

Issue (i): whether the District Judge retained jurisdiction to entertain the winding-up petition in view of the later notification withdrawing such jurisdiction

Analysis: The earlier notification conferring jurisdiction on the District Judge was made under the previous companies law and was saved by the saving provision in the Companies Act, 1956. Since the winding-up petition had already been presented before the later notification took effect, the petition was pending when the jurisdiction-altering notification became operative. The saved notification continued to operate so far as it could have been made under the Companies Act, 1956, and the jurisdiction objection based on the later notification was not available.

Conclusion: The jurisdiction objection failed, and the District Judge was competent to proceed with the petition.

Issue (ii): whether the company was liable to be wound up for inability to pay its debts on the basis of the creditor's decree and statutory notice

Analysis: A company may be treated as unable to pay its debts where a creditor serves the prescribed demand and the company neglects to pay within the statutory period. The existence of a decree in favour of the creditor did not exclude resort to that statutory mode. The decree-holder remained a creditor, and the two clauses dealing with inability to pay debts were alternative methods of proving the same statutory condition. The company had also failed to discharge other decrees and was found to be commercially insolvent.

Conclusion: The company was rightly held unable to pay its debts and was liable to be wound up.

Issue (iii): whether the proceedings could continue in the firm's name notwithstanding the death of some partners

Analysis: Where persons sue in the name of a firm, the death of some partners does not require the legal representatives of the deceased to be joined, and the proceedings may continue in the firm's name. The objection that the petitioner had become a different entity therefore had no substance.

Conclusion: The proceedings validly continued in the firm's name.

Final Conclusion: The order directing winding up was sustained, and the appellant's challenge failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A saved jurisdiction-conferring notification under a prior companies law continues under the Companies Act, 1956 to the extent it could validly have been made under that Act, and a decree-holder creditor may rely on the statutory demand procedure for proving inability to pay debts even without first taking out execution on the decree.

---