TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (5) TMI 214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 433 of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 1, Mr. B.P. Gupta, is the creditor of the company and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, viz., Shri Suraj Parkash Gupta and Shrimati Madhuri Gupta, are the shareholders/directors. Petitioner No. 1 has claimed that the respondent company has not returned the loan of Rs. 1,26,334.46 in spite of repeated demands. He has further claimed an amount of Rs. 18,000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondents that there cannot be a joint petition by a creditor and shareholders/directors. It is pointed out that such a misjoinder is contrary to Order 1, rule 1 and Order 2, rule 3. It is further asserted that rule 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, does not change the rule of misjoinder of parties and the cause of action as envisaged by the Civil Procedure Code. Counsel for the respondent h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f mismanagement and oppression. The requirements of Order 1, rule 1, are not and cannot be fulfilled in the present petition. But the petition cannot be saved under Order 2, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, either, because the cause of action in the two sets of allegations are quite different. Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act provide the substantive heads under which a company petition can b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 3 from the management are matters of personal knowledge of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. They have not filed any affidavit supporting the petition. It is also correct that the affidavit is not properly verified as required by the Civil Procedure Code. It is a general verification stating that the contents of the above affidavit are true to "my" knowledge. The source of knowledge is not disclosed. I....