9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of whether the requirement of advertising a petition in the Official Gazette, as mandated by rule 24 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, can be dispensed with. Summary: The appellant filed a petition for winding up a company under section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petition was admitted, and a provisional liquidator was appointed without direction to advertise the petition as required by rule 24. An application was made to advertise the petition in newspapers but dispense with the Official Gazette publication, which was rejected by the company judge. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that rule 99 allows for dispensing with the advertisement requirement. The respondent opposed, stating that the court lacks the power to dispense with Official Gazette publication. Upon review, the court considered the relevant rules. Rule 96 outlines the procedure for admitting a petition and giving directions for advertisement. Rule 24 specifies the advertisement requirements, including publication in the Official Gazette, an English daily, and a regional language daily. The court noted that while rule 99 provides some discretion, the mandatory nature of advertising a winding-up petition is emphasized in sub-rule (2) of rule 24. The court disagreed with the appellant's interpretation of rule 99, stating that the discretion is limited to the timing of advertisement. Referring to past cases, the court highlighted the mandatory nature of advertising a winding-up petition and the specific requirements of rule 24. It emphasized that the court's inherent powers, as per rule 9, do not extend to dispensing with such mandatory requirements. The court also cited the principle that statutory requirements must be followed as laid out, as seen in various legal precedents. In conclusion, the court dismissed the appellant's challenge, affirming the necessity of advertising a winding-up petition in the Official Gazette as per rule 24. The judgment underscores the mandatory nature of this requirement and the limitations on the court's discretion in this regard.
|
