1986 (5) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ratta for the Petitioner. L.M. Suri and Ravinder Arora for the Respondent. JUDGMENT D.V. Sehgal, J.-A petition under sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called "the Act"), filed by the appellant for winding up of the companies, respondent No. 1, was dismissed by the learned single judge, vide judgment dated November 3, 1983, (Mool Chand Wahi v. National Paint....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ich were correct to his belief. Rule 11(a) of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called "the Rules"), defines "petitions". A petition under section 439 of the Act for winding up of a company is mentioned in sub-rule (15) of the said rule. Rule 21 prescribes that every petition shall be verified by an affidavit made by the petitioner and such affidavit shall be filed along with the peti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a firesh affidavit and the petition should not have been dismissed for want of proper verification of the affidavit. He placed reliance on Manohar Narayan Joshi v. Ramu Mhatang Patel, AIR 1973 Bom. 105. We do not find any force in this contention. Going through the judgment of the learned single judge, we find that the law on the point has been elaborately discussed and as a result an imperativ....