Court denies petition under Companies Act, citing lack of justification and mala fide intentions.

The court found that the petition filed by a contributory of the appellant company was not maintainable under section 466 of the Companies Act as the company was not in liquidation. The court refused to grant leave to the petitioner to present the petition, noting lack of justification and awareness of proceedings. Additionally, the court dismissed the application, citing mala fide intentions by the company in trying to stay the winding-up order for the benefit of other parties. The petition was deemed incompetent, dismissed with costs, and all interim orders were vacated, with amounts deposited to be refunded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition by the contributory.
2. Grounds for granting leave to the petitioner to present the petition.
3. Merits of the application and allegations of mala fide intentions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Petition by the Contributory:
The court examined whether the petition filed by Mahabir Prasad Agarwalla, claiming to be a contributory of the appellant company, was maintainable. The court noted that while section 466 of the Companies Act confers a right on the contributory to present a winding-up petition, the proceeding under section 466 is independent. An application for stay of the winding-up order in an appeal cannot be considered under section 466. To make an application under section 466, the company must be in liquidation, and the validity of the winding-up order must be accepted. The court concluded that the present petition could not be considered under section 466 and thus was not maintainable.

2. Grounds for Granting Leave to the Petitioner to Present the Petition:
The petitioner argued that as a contributory, he had a statutory right under section 466 to make an application for the stay of winding-up proceedings and sought leave to present the petition. The court, however, noted that the petitioner was not a party to the original proceeding and had not obtained prior leave of the court. The court also observed that the petitioner and other contributories had an opportunity to appear before the company court but chose not to. The court found no materials justifying the granting of leave and noted that the petitioner must have been aware of the proceedings and orders passed. The court refused to grant leave, stating that the principle of granting leave to a non-party to appeal against an order does not apply in this case.

3. Merits of the Application and Allegations of Mala Fide Intentions:
The court considered the merits of the application and the allegations of mala fide intentions. The petitioner argued that the contributories were not aware of the previous order for stay and the default by the company in complying with the conditions. The court was not convinced by this argument, noting that the petitioner and the Agarwallas virtually constituted the company and must have been aware of the proceedings. The court found that the company had lost interest in the proceeding after the interim order for stay was vacated due to non-compliance with conditions. The court also noted that the company had not been in a position to run the mills for years and was now trying to stay the winding-up order for the benefit of other parties. The court concluded that the application was mala fide and should be dismissed.

Conclusion:
The court held that the present petition by Mahabir Prasad Agarwalla was not competent and could not be entertained. The application was dismissed with costs, and all interim orders were vacated. The amounts deposited by the petitioner pursuant to earlier orders were directed to be refunded. The operation of the order was stayed for a fortnight, maintaining the status quo during this period.

---