1964 (6) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e is a principal officer of the company. That expression is not necessarily limited to directors. Various other officials of corporations have from time to time been accepted as principal officers. For example, I imagine that a general manager would be, but I do not find it possible to say that all these 32 gentlemen are principal officers of the company. Rule 30 is, so far as the capacity of the deponent is concerned, strictly construed. I have been referred to the well known Practice Note [1937] WN. 350 of Simonds J.: " Under the Companies (Winding-up) Rules, 1929, rule 29, where the petition is presented by a corporation, the affidavit verifying it is to be made by some director, secretary or other principal officer thereof. "Simon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "to do all or any of the following acts, viz.: . .. 3. To present on our behalf any petition in bankruptcy or in companies winding up as may be necessary or desirable from time to time and to make, swear and file any affidavits or other documents in connection therewith . . ." One of the named "servants" is Mark Mothio so there is no doubt that in this case he has been duly authorised by the petitioner company to Swear the affidavit. It seems to me, however, that that does not constitute him a principal officer of the company within the meaning of rule 30 and, apart from, perhaps, special circumstances, it is not legitimate to by-pass rule 30 by granting a power of attorney to some servant of the company who is not a principal officer o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be the result of non-compliance with its provisions. The rule does not say that the petition is in that case to fail. The rule is merely directory as to the kind of affidavit to be accepted as evidence. That leaves it open to the court, in a proper case, to accept an affidavit which in an ordinary case coming before the court would be accepted as sufficient evidence. I have already said that in this case the affidavit in question is of more value than that of the petitioner, and therefore, on the principle I have mentioned, I accept that affidavit as a sufficient compliance with rule 29." I do not want to say that there can never be a case in which a company carrying on business in this country could not properly support its petition by an ....