1989 (2) TMI 327

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... S.C. Pratap, J. After this petition for winding up was admitted and advertised, the company paid in full all its creditors without exception. Thereafter, however, the present applicants claiming to be creditors of the company, have come forward for substitution in place of the original petitioners. Now, substitution, though permissible, is a matter in the discretion of the court. It is not a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... madhikari, helps the applicants here. Indeed, the said ruling itself indicates that discretion vests in the court under rule 101 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, whether or not to grant substitution. My attention was also invited to a ruling of this court in Kewal P. Kashyap v. J . H. Jagtiani, AIR 1979 Bom 5. That, however, was a case under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and, as ri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... an amount of Rs. 7,900 odd is due from them to the company. This statement of accounts sent to the applicants as far back as in April, 1987, remained uncontroverted. Despite reminders, there was no reply thereto, much less any denial thereof. In the circumstances, there is serious doubt as to the validity and authenticity of the applicants' claim set up for the first time now while claiming sub .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X