9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1983 (11) TMI 332 - HC - Companies Law
Issues:
1. Notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 served on the company. 2. Affidavit accompanying the petition not in proper form. Analysis: Issue 1: Notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 served on the company The petitioner served a notice dated January 9, 1980, under Section 434 of the Act on the director in-charge of the company. The respondents did not object to the service of this notice. The court deemed the notice to have been served upon the company based on the circumstances. The respondents contested the petition on the grounds of improper notice service, but the court found the notice to be validly served. Issue 2: Affidavit accompanying the petition not in proper form The affidavit accompanying the petition was challenged for not being in the proper form. The verification clause did not clearly delineate which paragraphs were true to the deponent's knowledge and which were based on belief. The rules require the affidavit to be in a specific form, with clear distinctions between knowledge and belief. The court referred to relevant rules and cases emphasizing the importance of proper verification in affidavits. It held that the affidavit was not in due form, rendering it valueless. Since a petition for winding-up must be accompanied by a proper affidavit, the court dismissed the petition on this ground alone, as the affidavit is considered substantive evidence and without it, the petition is not valid in the eyes of the law. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition on the preliminary objection of the improper affidavit, without delving into the merits of the case. The decision was based on the mandatory requirement of a validly sworn affidavit accompanying a petition for winding-up, as it serves as substantive evidence and relates back to the date of presentation of the petition. The court highlighted the significance of strict adherence to the rules governing affidavits in legal proceedings, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the petition due to the deficiency in the accompanying affidavit.
|
