TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (7) TMI 324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her time may be granted. The matter was adjourned by four weeks. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. The counsel is also not present in the Court. 3. We have heard Ms. Pragya Singh Baghel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and also perused the original record which has been received from the High Court. 4. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 27-10-1997 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Company Appeal No. 1 of 1994. By the said order, the High Court dismissed the said Company Appeal holding, inter alia, that the learned Company Judge did not commit any error of law in allowing the appellant to file fresh affidavit to remove the defects in verification of the company petition. The High Court further held that the finding of the learned Company Judge regarding the sufficiency of the reasons for advertisement were not final. The said Company Appeal No. 1 of 1994 which has been dismissed by the High Court had been filed by the appellant herein against the order dated 10-1-1994 passed by the learned Company Judge of the said Court in Company Petition No. 3 of 1987 wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat because the winding up petition which is not supported with affidavit in accordance with law and is violative of rules 18 and 21 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and is not in prescribed form is not liable to be admitted at all and is liable to be dismissed by the Company Court and also the appellate Court. 9. It is further urged that the defect in verification of the winding up petition arising out of non-compliance with rule 21 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was fatal to the winding up petition and the said petition ought to have been dismissed on that ground alone. It is also further contended that the defect in verification of the winding up petition on account of non-compliance with the provisions of rule 21 of the Companies (Court) Rules cannot be corrected by filing fresh affidavit by the respondent after a lapse of over several years from the date of institution of the winding up petition. 10. It is further contended that a defect in the verification of the winding up petition arising out of non-compliance with the provisions of rule 21 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 cannot be cured by filing a fresh affidavit after a lapse of over 10 years as directed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., rules of procedure are only to ensure certain ends. Verification is insisted upon to render the person who verifies, responsible for the statement contained in the petition so that it can be read as evidence. In case it is not duly verified, the same result can be achieved by requiring the petitioner to verify the petition. Going beyond this would render the dispensation of justice subject to minor technicalities of procedure which can never be the intention of law. The rules of procedure are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to frustrate it. We are, therefore, in respectful disagreement with the decisions of Calcutta High Court and Punjab High Court and are of the view that any defect in verification can be justified. The petitioner can be required to re-verify the affidavit and once it stands duly verified, the petition would be in order to be proceeded with in accordance with law. Dismissing the petition for not confirming to the prescribed form of verification would be taking a hypertechnical view of the matter. A person would be penalised for the inadequacy of his counsel as it can be assumed that such a mistake cannot be deliberate nor has it been so suggested ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1959 :- "FORM NO. 3 [See rule 21] [Heading as in Form No. 1] Company Petition No................ of 19............ Affidavit verifying petition I, A.B., son of ....aged .........residing at .......do solemnly affirm and say as follows : - 1. I am a director/secretary/......................./of ..................Ltd., the petitioner in the above matter *and am duly authorised by the said petitioner to make this affidavit on its behalf. Note :-This paragraph is to be included in cases the petitioner is the company. 2. The statements made in paragraphs..................of the petition herein now shown to me and marked with the letter 'A', are true to my knowledge, and the statements made in paragraphs.........................are based on information, and I believe them to be true. Solemnly affirmed, etc. *Note.-To be included when the affidavit is sworn to by any person other than a director, agent or secretary or other officer of the company." 17. Rule 21 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 prescribes the procedure for verification of affidavit. Rule 21 is reproduced as under :- "21. Affidavit verifying petition.-Every petition shall be verified by an affidavit made b....