9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (9) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebtor-company"), on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of section 433 ( e ) of the Companies Act, 1956. Under clause ( f ) of that section, a company may also be wound up, if the court is of opinion that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up. When the petition for winding up was advertised under rule 99 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, the Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd., Dabra (hereinafter called the "intervener"), applied for leave to intervene, as it desired to oppose the petition. Its application was rejected on the ground that the intervener is neither a creditor, nor a contributory, nor does it come within the expression "other persons desirous of supporting or opposing the mak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enough to include any person whoever he may be. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, urges that the words "other persons" must be restricted to those enumerated in section 439 of the Companies Act. In our opinion, this contention is untenable. Section 439 provides for an application for winding up. It enacts that an application to the court for the winding up of a company shall be by a petition. Those who can present such petition are enumerated. A creditor falls under clause ( b ) and a contributory under clause ( e ). If the intention of the words "other persons" in Form No. 48 was to limit it to the other persons specified in section 439, then the words "other persons" were bound to be qualified by the expression " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been mentioned. But when the language of the statute is plain and there is no uncertainty, the rule has no application. For the application of the ejusdem generis rule, it is essential that ihe specified words before the general words must constitute a category or genus. Mr. Justice Hidayatullah (as his Lordship then was), speaking for the court in Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Kajaria Traders ( India ) Ltd. AIR 1964 S.C. 1882, 1885 laid down thus : "It follows, therefore, that interpretation ejusdem generis or noscitur a sociis need not always be made when words showing particular classes are followed by general words. Before the general words can be so interpreted there must be a genus constituted or a category disclosed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceipt of maintenance'...It is most likely that a word of the widest amplitude was used to cover even acts of charity and bounty.".. In Handard Dawakhana v. Union of India AIR 1965 SC 1167, 1172, Gajendragadkar C.J. said: "The suggestion that this clause should be read ejusdem generis with the previous category of beverages cannot obviously be accepted, because an examination of the said beverages will disclose the fact that there is no genus by reference to which the rule of ejusdem generis can be properly invoked. Besides, the context of the clause clearly suggests that it is intended to take in all beverages other than those earlier specified, provided they contain fruit juices or fruit pulp". In our opinion, in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utton v. Wilson [1889] 22 QBD 744, 748. Lindley L.J. observed : " ...we must look at the object to be attained". See also Cox v. Hakes [1890] 15 App. Cas. 506,517 per Lord Halsbury. It may be the requirement of the general object of the Act that the final generic word should not be restricted in meaning by the preceding words. In R. v. Edmundson [1859] 28 L.J.M.C. 213, in the expression "in any dwelling house, out-house yard, garden, or other place", a warehouse which was a mile and a half from the dwelling house was held to be included in the expression "other place", although apparently a warehouse would not be considered as ejusdem generis with a dwelling house, coupled with its enumerated dependencies. If, on a wider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... words. It is quite clear to us that every person whose interests are likely to be affected adversely or favourably is entitled to oppose or support a petition for winding up of a company under section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. Such a person is within the expression "any other person" in Form No. 48, read with rule 99 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. When a creditor by petition prays for winding up of a company and that company is the managing agent of another company and the former is surety of the latter for huge loans and advances made by the banks, that other company has the right to intervene and oppose the winding up petition. The Privy Council cases in Chhajju Ram v. Neki AIR 1922 P.C. 112 and Bisheshwar v. Parath ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
