9911796707
TMI Blog1954 (4) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered on 29th November, 1949. On 25th July, 1952, the respondents tiled a petition for winding up of the company under section 162 of the Companies Act, impleading the appellant No. 2 as respondent. The company was not shown as a respondent in the petition though in the cause title it was stated " In the matter of the Bastar Transport and Trading Company Limited and in the matter of the Indian Companies Act, VII of 1913." The District Judge appointed ex parte a provisional liquidator. In response to a notice of the petition served on the company on 30th July, 1952, it appeared on 9th August, 1952, through the appellant No. 2 and complained about the notice which was apparently in form No. 6, i.e., a notice to respondent under Order XLI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company as respondent No. 2 and partially allowed the application for amendment. It is contended that the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to proceedings under the Companies Act, which are proceedings in equity. This contention is unacceptable. By section 141, the procedure provided in the Code in regard to suits has to be followed, so far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. This section is made applicable to proceedings under the Companies Act: In the matter of West Hopetown Tea Co. Ltd. [1887] 9 All. 180 , Official Liquidators, Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. v. President, Council of Regency, Nabha State [1936] 6 Comp. Cas. 409 , and Seethiah v. Venkatasubb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As we find from the order sheets, the lower court did not deal with the petition on merits till 14th February, 1953. The application for amendment was thus not made at a late stage of the proceedings though it was made about six months after the written statement was filed. The lower court has allowed the respondents to amend the petition by pleading that the principles on which dissolution of partnership can be ordered by the court should govern this case as the company was in substance a partnership. In support of this contention it was alleged that there was a complete deadlock in the working of the company owing to the utter lack of confidence in the managing director, the appellant No. 2, that the relations between the parties becam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. Under these circumstances it is futile to contend that these allegations make out a new case against the appellant No. 2, The contention that the application for amendment was not made bona fide but was made mala fide with a view to protract the proceedings is not supportable on facts which we have already stated. Lastly, it was contended that having persisted in the original petition in spite of objection, and having obtained an order favourable to them, the respondents could not be allowed to turn round and amend the petition when they found that in view of the decision in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 177 of 1952 their petition was likely to fail. It is not correct to say that the respondents persisted in the original petition in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
