2006 (12) TMI 245 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
- Dismissal of company petition seeking winding up due to lack of authorization of the appellant to represent the company.
- Lack of objection raised by the respondent regarding the appellant's authorization to file the company petition.
- Appeal against the order of the learned company judge.

Analysis:
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh heard an appeal against the dismissal of a company petition seeking winding up of a respondent-company due to the lack of authorization of the appellant to represent the company. The main ground for dismissal by the learned company judge was the appellant not being an authorized person to file the petition and provide evidence. However, the appellant, being a company secretary, argued that under rule 21 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, he was authorized to file pleadings and give evidence without explicit authority from the company.

The appeal challenged the order of the learned company judge on the basis that the respondent did not initially raise any objection regarding the appellant's authorization to file the company petition. It was only during cross-examination that questions were raised about the appellant's capability to file the petition. The High Court observed that since the respondent did not object in the counter before the company court about the appellant's capacity and capability to file the petition, the appellant was taken by surprise when this objection was considered, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

In light of the lack of objection raised by the respondent earlier, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the company court. The appellant was granted the opportunity to submit all material to prove his authorization to file the company petition. The company court was directed to hear both sides and make appropriate decisions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.