9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e company objected to such leave being granted by this Court. He referred to the scope of the said Rule and some judgments of the High Courts and also a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court. He submitted that the instant petition has not been verified in accordance with the provision contained under the said Rule and that it has been held by this Court in Gaya Textiles Private Ltd. etc. and Star Textile Engineering Works Ltd., reported in AIR 1968 Calcutta 388, to the effect that if a verification was defective, the Court could not make an order for winding up of a petition and re-verification of a winding up petition cannot be allowed. He also referred to a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, rendered in the case of Mool Chand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Others, reported in (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 217 and submitted that if a power of attorney holder rendered some "acts" in pursuance of a power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter of which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined. While referring to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, he also relied on paragraph 6 of the affidavit verifying the instant petition and submitted that it would appear therefrom that other than paragraph 1 of the petition which has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as duly authorised by his clients to do so. After considering the respective submissions, it is necessary to refer to the provision as contained under Rule 21 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959, which is setout hereinbelow: 21. Affidavit verifying petition. − Every petition shall be verified by an affidavit made by the petitioner or by one of the petitioners, where there are more than one, and in the case the petition is presented by a body corporate, by a director, secretary or other principal officer thereof; such affidavit shall be filed along with the petition and shall be in Form No.3: Provided that the judge or Registrar may, for sufficient reason, grant leave to any other person duly authorised by the petitioner to make an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is whether the Court can grant leave to the persons who have sworn the affidavit verifying the instant winding-up petition, as being "duly authorised" to do so by the petitioners. This Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, before such leave under Rule 21 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959, is granted in favour of those persons, it is necessary for it to be satisfied that that all of them have been "duly authorised" by the petitioning-creditors to make and file the affidavit in support of the instant petition on their behalf. As such, the deponents are directed to satisfy this Court that they were "duly authorised" by the petitioning creditors to make and file the affidavit verifying the instant win ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
