https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97345 Fully paid-up shareholders were treated as contributories under the winding-up scheme of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, so they could present a winding-up petition under section 166 without pleading or proving that surplus assets would remain for distribution. The Court also accepted that the petition was properly signed and verified in accordance with the rules, that the pendency of an earlier petition under section 221 did not bar the present petition because it sought different relief and involved a different petitioner configuration, and that the challenge concerning joint holders was not sustainable. The estoppel objection against petitioner No. 1 was left open for later consideration. en-us Fri, 22 Apr 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:19:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97345 Fully paid-up shareholders were treated as contributories under the winding-up scheme of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, so they could present a winding-up petition under section 166 without pleading or proving that surplus assets would remain for distribution. The Court also accepted that the petition was properly signed and verified in accordance with the rules, that the pendency of an earlier petition under section 221 did not bar the present petition because it sought different relief and involved a different petitioner configuration, and that the challenge concerning joint holders was not sustainable. The estoppel objection against petitioner No. 1 was left open for later consideration. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 22 Apr 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97345