The case of the appellant companypany has been that the sum of money claimed by the respondent in the Winding Up Petition was number outstanding inasmuch as the said sum of money had already been paid to M s General Trading Sales Corporation who were the mutual agent of the appellant and the respondent.
We have perused the grounds of appeal filed in this Court.
Company Appeal No.1 of 1994 was filed against the order dt.10.01.1994 passed by the Company Judge in Company Petition No.3 of 1987.
Ms.Pragya Singh Baghel, learned companynsel for the respondent further submitted that the technical plea raised by the respondent regarding defective affidavit was raised after seven years of filing the petition.
The said Company Appeal No.1 of 1994 which has been dismissed by the High Court had been filed by the appellant herein against the order dt.10.01.1994 passed by the learned Company Judge of the said Court in Company Petition No.3 of 1987 whereby the respondent, namely, the Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. were directed to file a fresh affidavit to remove the defect in the verification accompanying the said Company Petition and thereafter for the listing of the petition for passing orders regarding advertisement.
The respondent after denying averments made in the appeal grounds answered the preliminary objection raised by the appellant for the first time before the learned Single Judge is merely an afterthought and an attempt to somehow escape from their liability of payment of the outstanding dues to the respondent companypany.
The Winding Up Petition filed by the respondent was, therefore, wholly without any basis or foundation in law and hence number maintainable.
The respondent filed companynter affidavit to the Civil Appeal.
Hence numberdebt was due and payable by the appellant to the respondent.
We have heard Ms.Pragya Singh Baghel, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and also perused the original record which has been received from the High Court.
The High Court further held that the finding of the learned Company Judge regarding the sufficiency of the reasons for advertisement were number final.
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dt.27.10.1997 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Company Appeal No.1 of 1994.
Notice was also sent by speed post A.D. Courier to M s Associated Journals Ltd., Lucknow, U.P. and M s Associated Journals Ltd., New Delhi requesting them to companytact them otherwise they will number be in a position to attend to the above matter and will seeks direction from this Court for discharge as advocate on record.
The learned Single Judge has also referred to a judgment of the Division Bench of the said Court in Company Appeal No.1 of 1993 in The Pradeshiya Industrial Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh Limited vs. North India Petro Chemicals Limited and another which was decided on 27.08.1993.
It appears that the previous companynsel sought direction from this Court to discharge him as advocate on record.
When the matter was taken up for hearing on 12.04.2006, a submission was made by the learned companynsel appearing for the appellant that numberreply has been received from the addressee till date and, therefore, further time may be granted.
In the said appeal, the appellant had challenged the order of Company Judge on several grounds.
The respondent was allowed to file a fresh affidavit companyrecting the defect in the verification of the Winding Up Petition filed by the respondent and further fixed the Winding Up Petition for passing orders regarding advertisement.
The learned judges of the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and directed that after fresh affidavit as required in the order dt.10.01.1994 has been filed, the Company Petition be listed before the learned Company Judge for passing fresh orders regarding advertisement of the Company Petition.
There was, therefore, numberquestion of the appellant companypany being unable to pay any debts to the respondent.
By the said order, the High Court dismissed the said Company Appeal holding inter alia that the learned Company Judge did number companymit any error of law in allowing the appellant to file fresh affidavit to remove the defects in verification of the companypany petition.
Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN, J. None appears for the appellant despite service of numberice on the appellant.
The matter was adjourned by four weeks.
