https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112037 A company-initiated winding up petition under the Companies Act, 1956 requires strict compliance with the statutory scheme and a special resolution of shareholders where authorisation is mandated; a board resolution is insufficient and the petition is not maintainable without such authority. Inherent powers under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 cannot be used to create a suo motu winding up jurisdiction contrary to the Act, because the class of persons entitled to present a petition is exhaustively fixed by statute. Appointment of a provisional liquidator is only an interim protective measure and does not by itself justify winding up. Even where winding up is refused, the Court may direct investigation into the company's affairs through an inspector appointed by the Central Government. en-us Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:23:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112037 A company-initiated winding up petition under the Companies Act, 1956 requires strict compliance with the statutory scheme and a special resolution of shareholders where authorisation is mandated; a board resolution is insufficient and the petition is not maintainable without such authority. Inherent powers under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 cannot be used to create a suo motu winding up jurisdiction contrary to the Act, because the class of persons entitled to present a petition is exhaustively fixed by statute. Appointment of a provisional liquidator is only an interim protective measure and does not by itself justify winding up. Even where winding up is refused, the Court may direct investigation into the company's affairs through an inspector appointed by the Central Government. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112037